Talk:Christmas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Calculation

the article says:

Early Christians sought to calculate the date of Christ's birth based on the idea that Old Testament prophets died either on an anniversary of their birth or of their conception. They reasoned that Jesus died on an anniversary of his conception, so the date of his birth was nine months after the date of Good Friday, either December 25 or January 6.

I think the whole paragraph is wrong. Jesus' conception (March 25, Annunciation) is calculated for having occured 9 months before Christmas, Christmas being the starting date, not the other way around. We don't have a starting date for the conception as May 25

Unlike what the phrase says, the birth couldn't have been fixed on a particular day if his death was anniversary of his conception: He was crucified on Nissan (late March/early April) of a lunar calendar, with no exact date known. Pictureuploader 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In ancient times, a great deal of significance was attached to March 25.[1] It was thought to be the date of the equinoix as well as the anniversary of the Genesis creation story.
Few celebrated Christmas in Roman times. It became a major feast day after 800 because it is the day Charlemagne was crowned emperor. To assume that Annuciation must have been calculated based on the date of Christmas is to project modern attitudes into the past. Kauffner 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit "Decorations" section?

Should “Christmas figures” be changed to “winter figures”? Sleighs and snowmen aren’t necessarily Christmas in nature, but they are definitely winter-y in nature. Also, should the mention of municipal legal battles be mentioned here as it is, or as a sub-set of “Decorations”, or in a totally different section dealing with “Christmas Religious/Secular Controversies” which could include court battles and John Gibson’s book “The War On Christmas” or the spat between Bill O’Reilly and The Daily Show, or stores greeting with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”, etc?BoomBox 10:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Featured Article?

I have requested that Christmas be the featured article (view the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article#Christmas (To be featured on December 25)). The article certainly deserves to be showcased. Don't forget to vote! Brisvegas 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox calendar

O.K., many of the Orthodox resisted switching to the Gregorian calendar from the Julian calendar, and so though their societies run on the Gregorian calendar, they continue to celebrate their religious holidays according to the Julian one. That means a difference in date. It does not mean that they do not celebrate on the 25th. --MichaelTinkler

If you want to be real specific, Dec 24 Christmas Eve is the most important part of German Xmas and I believe other Europeans too? Everyone goes to church and celebrates on the 24st. 25th is the gathering of the family to the traditional Christmas goose dinner.26th is the 2. Xmas day.user:H.J.

H.J., I hate to break it to you, but the 24th is 'most important' because of the Catholic Church (papal propaganda?). In the middle ages monks developed the custom of celebrating the vigil or 'evening before' (hence, 'eve') of feasts. This practice is known technically as 'anticipation'; in other words, 'starting early'. Christmas Eve and Easter Vigil (the night before Easter) are still the most important two night-time services in Catholicism. --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler No need to break it to me, Protestant church is in the evening, Catholic church is at midnight. Used to go to both. To the anticipation you might want to add the "Advent" , another part of Xmas , greatly overlooked and "forgotten" in USA but very important other places. Back to the propaganda- http://www.newadvent.org/cathgen/12456a.htm dates the official phase of the propaganda start in 1572 . That is of course only when it was actually recorded as such.When I use it I should put it in " ". The seperat German Mythology is a good idea. But the whole thing with Mythology (Asatru) or whatever (for me) goes too much into the unreal . The German(ic) gods, were not really gods in that sence, more an attempt of explaining natural phenomina and should probably rather be called nature spirits instead of the English word gods. I would like to know what Stabreim (the type of poem) is in English though user:H.J.

Sorry - didn't know where to put this, but this entry needs to be reviewed, it has obvious direct overtones with someone who had already made up their minds about to if/when Jesus was God and when he was born:

Much older than this, though, are the references in a 6-year almanac of Priestly Rotations, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are from before the Lord reached school-age. With no thought either for or against one date or another for the birth of One yet unknown to the general population, this almanac lists the times when John the Baptist's father would have served - and calculations from one of the times that he served, considering how soon after John was born, then how many months behind him Jesus came, gives the approximate date of December 25 in deed.

"Papal propaganda"

You should not use the term 'papal propaganda' to describe late antique and early medieval evangelization efforts even in quotation marks because it is anachronistic. Evangelization was not coordinated by the popes, nor was there an official institution in Rome to train missionaries before the late renaissance. For instance, St. Boniface was not sent by the popes. He volunteered. He went. He was sponsored by the Franks. The popes accepted his mission, but did not send him. If you want to make a general statement, say 'Christian missionaries.' It has the advantage of being both correct and neutral. Stabreim is usually translated as alliteration, and the form is called alliterative poetry. --MichaelTinkler

Don't know about other Christians in America, but the Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians), and Lutherans I know (the ones who actually go to church) ALL know about Advent, and many light Advent candles... JHK

To MichaelTinkler and JHK Thank you both. I have never heard of alliteration poetry and would have never thought of translating or explaining Stabreimverse that way. I see that you are touchy about 'papal propaganda' and will remind myself not to use it. Maybe we do want to add "Advent" to the Christmas page ? user:H.J.

Liturgical year page

Actually, I think that there needs to be some kind of Liturgical year page or section somewhere -- to Christianity rather than to Christmas, though. Also (and I am speaking for Michael without his authority) I think the objection is not to the use of 'papal propaganda', but the fact that you are misusing the term, because it has a very specific historical meaning. In the general vein of being touchy, I know that I am particularly so whan an article does not address the purported subject, or when the conclusions drawn in the article have no basis in historical fact and/or method. I guess that's the problem with open content -- you have enough people who care from a professional, as well as a personal, point of view, and we edit as if we were editing the work of our peers -- except that we're nicer on the wiki! JHK

Does anyone fancy working on WikiProject Christian liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 10:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox calendar

When the article says Eastern Orthodox celebrate on "the civil date of January 7", does that mean by the Gregorian or Julian calendar? If I suspect they mean the Gregorian calendar by "civil", what date do they celebrate it on by the Julian? (I understand they still set Christmas by the Julian.) In which case, we better give the Julian, not Gregorian date, since the Gregorian date will move over time, but the Julian date will remain the same forever (or at least until such time as the Eastern Orthodox decide to finally switch totally to the Gregorian calendar :) -- User:SJK

There are a couple more wrinkles to the Eastern Orthodox calendar here, and I only half understand them. One is that there's a third calendar involved called the Revised Julian Calendar, which was adopted by many Orthodox in about 1923. It's used by the Orthodox Church in America, among others. For the most part, it brings them into sync with the Gregorian Calendar so they both agree on when a given date occurs (no more 10 or 13 day differential), and it keeps the Spring Equinox on March 21. But they also calculate Easter according to the 325A.D. method, same as the Old Calendarists, so that all Orthodox still celebrate Easter on the same day, along with the movable feasts that are based on N days or Sundays before or after Easter.

Now with regard to Christmas in particular, this feast used to be combined with Theophany ("Epiphany" in the West?), which falls on January 6 and is all about Christ's baptism. In both feasts, Christ is revealed to the world, first simply by being born into it, in the second through the voice from Heaven and the blessing of the Holy Spirit acknowledging who He is, and also revealing God as three persons, since all three are present in that scene. At any rate, the date of Theophany on one calendar comes pretty close to the date of Christmas on the other; I suspect the time between them might be the famous "12 days of Christmas" though I'm not sure; guess I need to research this better.

Also with regard to Advent, the Orthodox observe a 40 day fast, sometimes called "Winter Lent", leading up to Christmas, or the Feast of the Nativity. It's not as strict as Great Lent which leads up to Easter, and exact fasting guidelines vary between jurisdictions. --Wesley

Epiphany, on the 6th, is about 'Christ being revealed' by the presence of the wise men. There is the feast of the presentation at the temple, I forget what date. Christ's baptism is when John the Baptist baptises him as an adult. Not sure which of these corresponds to Theophany. The 12 days of Christmas is Boxing day to the 6th I think, unless it's Christmas day to the 5th. Certainly, Epiphany is the end of Christmas. Advent is traditionally a mini lent in the west too, but rarely treated as such and was never 40 days. Skittle 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Saturnalia

what was december 25 originally, before it was appropriated by Christianity? Saturnalia? -- SJK

Saturnalia was originally Dec. 17, later expanded to Dec. 17-23. You're thinking of the Sol Invictus festival, or "Rebirth of the Sun."
I don't agree with the premise of your question, the idea that particular pagan holidays were "appropriated" by Christians. December 25 was considered the date of the winter solstice and more than one religion could independently decide to connect it's god to this astronomical event. Kauffner 08:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity rolled up a raft of pre-Christian traditions: Graeco-Romano, Celtic, Nordic and Eastern e.g. elements of Mithraism, etc. These tend to figure more in the geographical areas in which these absorbed cultures previously inhabited e.g. things like Yule logs are more likely to be seen in Scandinavia where these were a part of the old Odinnic cult celebrations and less prevalent in e.g. Ireland. Dec 25 and the Christmas festive brou-ha-ha are not culturally homogenous entities. Concepts like the Peterman, etc are unheard of in Britain yet prevalent in Holland, for example.sjc

Merry Christmas

I just had to say... Merry Christmas!

I'm saying the same thing... although it's a bit late.

) [8-) ;) --KA

Judicial non dies

What on earth does "Epiphany and Christmas were not made judicial non dies until 5~4." mean? User:SGBailey 13:00 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Judicial holidays. Anjouli 17:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

The article reads: "Christmas is celebrated to a lesser extent in the United States, where Thanksgiving is generally considered the major festival in the year." This statement really surprises me, as I am an American living in the U.S. and I've never heard anyone say or suggest that Thanksgiving gets more attention than Christmas. In the United States, Christmas far surpasses Thanksgiving in terms of preparation, commercialism, and secular as well as nonsecular observance. Anyone else agree with me on this? I didn't want to change the article willy-nilly.

I'd agree there. Most people I know have dinner for Thanksgiving, but do little else. Christmas, for most people I know, is a much bigger thing.. relatives drive/fly in, they decorate their homes, shop for weeks in advance, prepare large dinners, etc. Some people I know actually take all day to open presents.. -Jazz77

Capitalisation of "He"

Should the "He" and "His" referring to Jesus in this article be made with lowercase 'H'? Seems like capitolizing it is not NPOV, and it is also kind of distracting. The Jesus Christ article uses lowercase for the pronouns.

Perhaps your reliance on the precedent of the Jesus Christ is appropriate, but your appeal to NPOV is not. Whether the pronouns are capitalized or not, they each (equally) display a point of view (whether Jesus Christ was God), IMHO Yoink23 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

^^No they don't -- the usage of "he" instead of "He" says nothing about whether Jesus was God or not; it simply says we're using a pronoun to mean "Jesus" and "Jesus" happens to be a male human. --tilgrieog

Note that the Authorised Version (aka King James Version) of the Bible also uses lower case for the pronoun for Jesus. "of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16, to pick the first such pronoun in the NT). I would say AV is somewhat normative for English speakers and writers for spelling conventions and the like - although (because?) it is Protestant. Hence also we spell Messiah with a final 'h' rather than a final 's'. Messias is found in older Catholic English versions and is the Latinisation of Mašíaḥ. Stroika 18:19 Tuesday 20th December 2005 (GMT)

Sol Invictus / Yule

I believe there should be something about the European origins of Christmas, that is the Roman Sol Invictus or German Yule. Or should this go elsewhere?

(IIRC) you are correct that Christmas was choosen to supplant a Roman holiday (It could be Sol Invictus - I can't remember the name). Please add it to the article. →Raul654 17:15, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

It is often said that Christmas occurs at 25 December because it occurs on the date of an earlier Roman holiday. I can find no evidence of this. Looking at early calendars, the Saturnalia is earlier on in December, and over by the 25th and the festival of the unconquered sun is an Imperial invention I believe, and may well be later than the earliest references to Christmas (though of course these are arguable).

My suspicion is that the relationship between Christmas and Saturnalia (and maybe DSI) is a neat and oft-repeated explanation with little basis in fact. Anyone any evidence.

Agnes Michels's book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic" is a very good account of the festivals of Rome up to CJC. 82.68.102.190 20:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Africanus identified Dec. 25 as the birthday of Jesus in 221. Aurelian picked the date of the Sol Invictus festival in 274, so I don't see how Sol Invictus could have influenced the date of Christmas. Christmas is nine months after Annuciation (March 25), so there is a rational for the date that has nothing to do with pagan festivals.
Yule meant either a month-long festival or a festival on the day of the full moon. Either way, the date wouldn't correspond to December 25.Kauffner 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pagan Rites and Antichrist Activities

"In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrine the doctrine of men." (Matthew 15:9) I feel explains it all. I would not want Christ to assess all I have done to worship Himand find out He classified all my attempts as vain. The Bible offers 7 HOLYdays and a Weekly Sabbath to worship Jesus Christ properly.

Look at like this: You hire people to do a job, they decide not to do what you tell them and go ahead and do it their way. Your work is not being done. Do you keep those employees or fire them? How do you think Christ feels about us "Doing it Our Way?"

Finally Christmas is a modern evolution of a pagan festival that came from Babalonia from the time of Nimrod. It involves Nimrod who had a son, Tammuz, by him mother (whose name I cannot spell, Sin-a-ram-us.) Any way, the back ground event is briefly as follows: Nimrod was killed by Isrealites when he waged war to kill all who worshiped God. At his death, the Isrealites chopped his body in to pieces and sent those pieces in opposite directions. his mother/wife delcared herself god as Nimrod was now in heaven and will depart heavenly gifts upon his/her followers (Aka the Tree with Gifts) for the express purpose to destroy God's people on Earth. The Yule Log is his body, a remembrence to hate God's people. ** This stuff is in your public library, read it and learn the truth. **

Christmas is the exact opposit of what it poses to be.

It really depends on how you define "your way". I would say, "employers" are different from each other. Some are more lenient when some are more stern. I would tend to believe Jesus is a lenient one according to Bible so his definition of "your own way" is loose. Also, if one date has to be picked to celebrate Jesus' birth, does it really matter if "pagans" use that day too if you believe there's but one god? There are many "paganisms" in this world and every day can be a pagan day then :-) O you close-minded Christian fundamentalists! Henrysh 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What library suggested the Yule Log and the Christmas Tree originated from Nimrod? The Yule Log is to do with keeping light and warmth (the fire) going unbroken through the darkest period. The Christmas Tree came fairly recently (far more recently than Nimrod), and putting gifts under it came even later. Sounds like a highly specific library you visit.Skittle 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Christmas section in article

This section feels to me as if it should be a separate article; the subject matter isn't primarily Christmas, but even the parts that are come at it in a detailed & unfamiliar way that doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the article. But I'm tired and it's late (my usual excuses) and I can't get my mind around it now. Anyone else? Elf | Talk 04:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the same, and just made a major edit to remove POV (see below) and improve flow, but it still needs better composition.--Johnstone 16:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Biblical quote used to criticise the Christmas tree

Because it is based completely on one particular translation of Jeremiah, I have removed the following criticism of the Christmas trees from the article:

"Jeremiah 10:1-5 speaks of this custom, "Hear the word which The Lord speaks to you, O house of Yisrael. Thus said The Lord, 'Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not be awed by the signs of the heavens, for the nations are awed by them. For the prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it does not topple. They are like a rounded post, and they do not speak. They have to be carried because they do not walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they do no evil, nor is it in them to do any good.'" The Bible describes the Christmas tree as an idol. It might not be by chance that at Christmas we place our gifts at the foot of the tree just as many other idols are offered gifts at their feet."

An alternate translation of the underlined portion, in the New Jerusalem Bible (which is translated directly from the original Hebrew) reads:

"Yes, the customs of the peoples are quite futile: wood, nothing more, cut out of a forest, worked with a blade by a carver's hand, then embellished with silver and gold, then fastened with hammer and nails to keep from moving. Like scarecrows in a melon patch, they cannot talk, they have to be carried, since they cannot walk. Have no fear of them: they can do no harm—nor any good either!"

Since they are not carved out of wood, and do not resemble a scarecrow, this is hardly a rail against Christmas trees.--Johnstone 16:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Constantine, etc.

I have removed the following paragraph:

"When Constantine, who was a self-proclaimed Sun-worshipper all his life, came into the picture, he created the Catholic Church (Catholic meaning Universal), revealing that his true intention was to allow numerous pagan rituals and ideologies to be intermixed with belief in the Creator. This made room for the pagans without forcing them to drop their pagan practices and accept Christianity. The Pagans had no difficulty worshipping the Catholic Madonna and child because they were just seen as another manifestation of the Queen of Heaven and her son. The Pagans made no compromises; they didn't need to, they just continued their Pagan worship within the church.

It appears to be based on statements in The Da Vinci Code that have been debunked in The Da Vinci Hoax (and others). Constantine was not a life-long sun-worshipper. He was baptised in 337, just before his death. ("It was common for Christians at the time to put off baptism until their deathbed. Serious sins committed after baptism would require severe penance, so some considered it safer to wait until the end of life to be baptized.") He did not create the Catholic Church, and "intermix" pagan rituals and ideologies into it. ("Why would Christians who had suffered just a few years earlier under Diocletian for refusing to renounce their unique beliefs about God, Jesus, and salvation willingly compromise those same beliefs without so much as a whimper?") Equating the Madonna and child with pagan goddess and child-god is "a curious statement since any sensible person recognizes that the image of a nursing mother is hardly unique to one religion or culture." --Johnstone 16:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nimrod

I am removing the following, and will add it to Nimrod (king):

Genesis 10:8-10 describes Nimrod as one of the great grandsons of Noah. It says, "And Kush brought forth Nimrod, who was the first potentate on earth. He was a mighty hunter in the eyes of The Lord, therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod the mighty hunter in the eyes of The Lord." And the beginning of his reign was Babel, and Erek and Akkad and Kalned, in the land of Shin'ar." Nimrod was looked upon as a great leader and protector. His being a hunter and protector of the small villages from wild animals gave reason for him to be viewed as their savior.
Traditions outside of the Bible suggest that Nimrod died a violent death. One tradition says that he was killed by a wild animal. Another says that Shem killed him because he had led the people into the worship of Baal. According to ancient Egyptian and Babylonian traditions, his mother was Semiramis; sometimes Semiramis is referred to as the mother of Nimrod, and sometimes as his wife, leading to the belief that Nimrod married his mother. Also according to these traditions, Semiramis, who rose to greatness because of her son, was presented with a difficulty when her son died, so instead she pronounced him to be a god, so that she herself would become a goddess.
One tradition says that after Nimrod was killed, Semiramis claimed that an evergreen tree sprouted from a tree stump, which she said indicated the entry of new life into the deceased Nimrod; every year on the anniversary of Nimrod's birth (December 25th) they would leave gifts at this evergreen tree. This is presented by some as a possible explanation the origin of the Christmas tree. Even though Semiramis claimed to be a virgin she had another son, named Tammuz, who she said was the reincarnation of Nimrod. She became known as the "Virgin Mother", "Holy Mother" and the "Queen of Heaven" and was symbolized by the Moon. So began the worship of Semiramis and the child-god, and the whole paraphernalia of the Babylonian religious system.
After the decline of Babylon, the religion was transported to Egypt where the people worshipped Isis and her son Osiris (otherwise known as Horus). The same mother and child deities appeared in Pagan Rome as Fortuna and Jupiter, and in Greece as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms.

Christmas traditions around the world

I said this in Talk:Santa Claus too: I think it's a good idea to scrape together all the bits of information about the celebration of Christmas in non-English speaking countries that doesn't relate to the history of Christmas into a new page called "Christmas traditions around the world" or something. There we can list foreign names for Santa, Christmas decorations, etc., etc. and leave the Christmas and Santa pages devoted entirely to English speaking traditions and their histories.

Is everyone cool with this plan?

--Carl 03:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not cool with it, as I've just said on WP:FAC. When the article was changed into being devoted entirely to English-speaking countries, the article name ought have been changed, too. Wikepedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia in English, not the U.S. + UK + Commonwealth encyclopedia. The logical thing would be to have a central page called "Christmas", which summarized and linked to both existing pages like Christmas customs in Poland and also to Christmas customs in the U.S., Christmas customs in the UK, Christmas customs in Australia and so on. Unless indeed people think a joint Anglophone Christmas (or something) is more suitable, in view of how much the anglophone Christmas customs and media Christmases have in common with each other. In other words, there should be no intermediate layer of Christmas around the world — the English-speaking countries are in the world.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 22:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) P. S. I rather agree with you about Santa Claus, on the other hand. That's completely different.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 23:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I thought that plan was already in effect, as the current article links (both in the "national customs" section and in the "see also" at the end) twice with "Christmas around the world", where non-English speaking traditions are discussed. I had hoped that the holiday cheer would either loosen up the critics, or inspire someone to buff this up instead of shoot it down. At least I gave it a try, but with so many people chipping in on this popular subject, it is near impossible to write the article "by committee".Sfahey 23:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
C'mon. The spirit of the season can't or won't make room for the non-English-speaking world in an article named Christmas, what kind of holiday cheer does that project? I hope somebody will buff up the article, but if you put it up for FA, I think it's appropriate for me to criticize it even if I don't have the time to put in big-time work on it myself (which I think it needs: either that, or a simple name change). I only criticized in some detail because I thought it might be helpful, sorry if it ruined your Christmas instead. I do understand it must be frustrating to try to keep an article like this from popping off in all sorts of directions.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I created the "Christmas around the world" article, because the article on Santa Claus used to have the Finnish name for Santa listed in bold in the header for the article. I think we can all agree, that non-English names for things don't belong in the header of English articles. That's why we have links to other languages. I then looked around and found that both the pages on Santa Claus and Christmas were littered at random with factoids about the celebration of Christmas outside the Anglosphere. I figured it would make most sense to collect these factoids into a central location and refocus the Christmas and Santa articles on English speaking traditions. I agree that other traditions should also be described, but since a lot of overlapping information about non-English traditions were already being cross posted between Christmas and Santa, it made most sense to put them both into one place. "Christmas around the world" was the best title I could think of for this, but I agree that it's a poor title. Perhaps the article should be renamed "Non-English speaking Christmas traditions." In any event, the page has enough information to stand on its own, and I remember having to write a report about how Christmas is celebrated in other nations when I was 8, so probably having the information consolidated into a page will be of use to other children in the future. Reflecting some more, perhaps the Christmas article should be split up into three different articles: Christmas (religious observance), Christmas (Anglophone traditions), and Christmas (Non-anglophone traditions). The three topics are each full enough to merit a full page, and it's a good project for a collaboration of the week.--Carl 11:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just worked in a lot of stuff in the lead and elsewhere to make this a tad more universal. To make this live up to the ideal notion of an international article demands a much heavier hand, as much of the remaining items in the article are hopelessly parochial. It's too bad that "Japanese toilet", "Pepsi-can stove", and "Exploding whales" can make it to the front page, but topics that generate universal interest are doomed to die in committee.Sfahey 03:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some relevant discussion from Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Christmas:

  • Strong Keep Thanks to those that brought attention to this article needing some clean-up, but removal is premature - the article is shaping up nicely for a christmas main page feature. Abeo Paliurus 05:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It still has none of the sections on regional customs that it originally had (previously 23 paragraphs). I would say that it still has quite a lot of work to do, and that it should be resubmitted to FAC to make sure it meets today's FA standards. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:29
      • Of course then some will object that the article is too long (it is 39kb as is). Abeo Paliurus 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The article used to have a large section on regional customs. That version became Featured. This version has no sections on regional customs. If you're worried about the article being too long, trim away some of the other stuff to add in a section on regional customs. Otherwise the article is showing a strong western bias, particularly toward the U.S. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:50
          • It's pretty normal for unwieldy sections to split off into a separate article as WP grows. I don't necessarily see the creation of a separate article as "degrading" the main one. The problem is when the split creates a POV ghetto, leaving readers of the main article oblivious to other significant facets of the topic. This seems to be the Brian's concern, and I agree that the issue does need editorial attention. (copied to Talk:Christmas). --Dystopos 14:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Commercialization

I found some information on the over-commercialization of Christmas and I've sent the articles to some of my relatives. To the view of Rev. Lau of my church, Christmas should be the day for celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. For over 130 years, people have been shopping a lot during the Christmas cycle, esp. those in U.S. and Canada. This year, economists estimate that the sales amount of Christmas cycle will amount to 23% of annual total. I and the Rev. disagree because this seems to completely ruin he real purpose of this festival. If you have other comments, you can add or you can reply me at cheung1303@netvigator.com --Cheung1303 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Getting better

You now can read well into this article without getting swamped by the much-criticized Anglo-American slant. Evidently, nominating it for FAC was helpful. Anyone want to take it the next step ... chopping up UK and US "Media Christmas" for example, or incorporating the international stuff better into the main text? ... and perhaps re-nom it in time?Sfahey 00:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many imprvnts this week. In the same vein as above, anyone want to move/shorten/shuffle those Ang-Amer centric sections ... and maybe shorten or footnote the (interesting but parochial) Oliver Cromwell section as well ... and re-nom. this timely article?Sfahey 00:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Holiday vs. Holy day

Come on...which is it Really? I believe we need to include HOLY ; (I did a Find search) not once is the word Holy said. We may have enter a said period in our time when Christmas is no longer considered a Holy day, but rather a Holiday - along with Groundhog Day, Boxing Day and not to mention the endless lines at your local Wal-Mart.
PEACE RoboAction 08:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Christmas is a secular HOLIDAY in as much as it is recognized as such by many governments around the world. Perhaps some people see it as holy, but calling something a holiday doesn't imply that it cannot have a religious aspect. In fact, it may imply just the opposite. The compound term holy day in contrast emphasizes the holiday's religious aspects and thus creates bias. Theshibboleth 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Holiday and Holy Day are etymologically synonymous. The "War on Christmas" is a witch hunt. Go read the gospel again and pay attention to the parts where pharisees and do-gooders pestered Jesus about such trivialities and he reminded them over and over again the they can stop worrying about petty conflicts and get back to their duty to love one another. --Dystopos 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Holidays of the United States

I hope it's seen as helpful rather than scroogey that I've removed the article from Category:Holidays of the United States, sincde that's defined as "a collection of articles about holidays celebrated only, or primarily, in the United States". Incidentally, please do not add the article to the wider Category:Holidays either, as it is already a member of that (through the subcategory Category:Christmas.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Food poisoning scare?

I did not find any reason for the reference to Swedish newspapers testing foods in the paragraph which I shortened. Without such an explanation the item seemed lengthy (and bizarre). Sfahey 21:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In that case, I totally don't understand why you've now put the food poisoning scare sentence back, after I removed it. (The seasonal scare is an established media tradition, and personally I think the article can do with a little bizarre, but that's me.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(at the risk of beating a dead reindeer) I don't like to delete material which someone made the effort to contribute. In this case I saw flowery phraseology and slang ("slap-up") about a (food poisoning) scare which had not itself been mentioned. I thought it warranted toning down and explication, but not necessarily deletion. Curiously, the sentence which was left behind after someone else deleted the whole (Swedish food) thing suggested that a Disney movie is the most-entrenched tradition of Swedish Christmas. Can THIS be true? I gave it the benefit of some doubt and just inserted the qualifier, "perhaps".Sfahey 22:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought my edit summaries were very clear, those someones were all me. I contributed the paragraph about the julbord tradition and the media julbord scare tradition, you shortened it (don't understand the bit about you adding an explanation or explication), I removed the whole food material because I thought it a hollow shell without the attractively traditional aspect of the media scare, you reinserted it. Please just put any and all parts of the paragraph that you don't approve out of their misery, have you never heard of cruelty to animals? There are no someones out there to offend, nobody else added or removed any Swedish stuff. Incidentally, the reference to Ingmar Bergman, that you have also cleaned off (too flowery?), that was me, too. As for the Disney special on Christmas Eve being the one overarching Swedish Christmas tradition, yes, it's true. There's a lot of regional variation in Sweden, because the land is big although the population is small, so quarrels are liable to break out about any and all non-Disney aspects of Christmas, depending on where people have their roots. ("Baked ham? The hell you say! The traditional boiled pike!"--"Lutfisk!"--"All that matters is that you make your own mustard from whole mustard seed!"--"Herring salad!" Etc.). I quite understand if you won't take my word for the sense of national unity Swedes get from watching Disney on Christmas Eve, but ask any Swede--User:Fredrik or User:Mic come to mind. Merry Christmas.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contradictions?

The article states that the accounts of Matthew and Luke are contradictory or conflicting. I have read the story in both places many times and see no conflicts or contradictions. Eyewitness accounts commonly have different areas of focus or viewpoint. While Matthew and Luke were not direct eyewitnesses, they lived at a time where they were able to speak to those that either were eyewitnesses or only once or twice removed from the direct eyewitnesses, such as Mary herself or James the brother of Jesus. Luke gives the story primarily from Mary's viewpoint, whereas Matthew gives the story primarily from Joseph's viewpoint. -- Daniel Leatherwood

Yes, the differing way they deal with the announcement of Mary's pregnancy is easily reconciliable. I'll have to read them again to confirm that Matthew sends the family to Nazareth only to escape Herod's threat, while Luke has them from Nazareth to begin with, and in Bethlehem only for the census.Sfahey 20:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree too. Where're the contradictions? None. They compliment each other nicely I should say. So please remove this line: As one of the tenets of their faith, Christians accept the veracity of the story of Christmas, apparent difficulties reconciling the different versions of events notwithstanding. Thank you. --Garlics82 14:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

XMAS during wars

I think that during IWW and possibly IIWW on many fronts the fighting stopped and soldiers from different sides mingled. Can anybody verify this, and possibly and more similiar trivia from other historical periods? This would definetly be a good example of 'good will towards man'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hmmmm. that may relate to the carol, "Silent Night". The article is long already, but I will look into this eventually.Sfahey 02:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The carol in mind was "Christmas in the Trenches". Its story is worth looking up.Sfahey 15:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the famous "Christmas truce of 1914", if I remember the year right. It was early on in the war anyways. On Christmas eve, the Germans and English started singing Christams songs loudly at each other. In the morning, they went out into no mans land under flag of truce and initiated a short cease fire. Everyone got along quite well, traded goods (Germans had beer and cigars, English had better food and cigarettes, I believe) and even traded bits of uniforms for souveniers. Football games started. The truce dragged on. One Englishmen met his former barber, a German who had been living in England. The two sides helped each other post letters to loved ones in enemy territory. The officers couldn't convince the men to start killing one another again. They eventually resumed "fighting" but intentionally fired too high so as to miss. All the men had to be transferred elsewhere and fresh troops for both sides brought in, because those who had been a part of the Christmas truce refused to kill each other.

From other point of view: during WWI there where some battles in Latvia that are now refered as Christmas battles, if I remember corectly my school book stated that one of sides choosed to attack shortly before christmas because other side wouldn`t expect it -- Xil - talk 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
And every year after that, the officers fiercely cracked down to keep the men fighting. And the last eye witness to the truce died recently. Sad. Good will to all men, until the officers catch on. Skittle 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

HIS Star

I'm referring to this line in "The story of Christmas": "Like the Magi, the shepherds observed a huge star directly over Bethlehem, and followed it to the birthplace." The whole 2nd chapter of Luke, in fact, the whole Bible never mentioned about the shepherds seeing the star as the wise men did which stated in Matthew 2:2. Assumption shouldn't be made.

Obviously, these are two different incidents which took place in different times and places: The first case (Luke 2:1-20), at the night when Jesus was born, the angle announced the news to the shepherds. They went for a search for Him with the only sign given: "And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."-Luke 2:12.

The second event (Matthew 2:1-13), the wise men from the east saw the star and came to worship Him. Whether the star appeared before or after the birth, surely they needed some time to travel, ranging from days perhaps months to be more appropriate in those years (talk about Arabia to Jerusalem...). Well may be it was such a co-incident that the star started shinning way before Jesus was born, exactly the time needed for their journey and boom- bunch of people wedged in a manger (the wise men? Not necessary three, could be four, five or more...). However, let's go back to Matthew 2:1-2,"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem...". Jesus was already born while they were still in Jerusalem asking Herod the king for the precise location.

Few keywords from KJV to take note of between Luke and Matthew:

  • babe -> young child;
  • manger -> house; ,
  • Jesus, Mary and Joseph -> Jesus and Mary only.

--Garlics82 15:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sicily joke: the reindeer goats are officially extinct, let it go, please

On Dec 20, an anon contributed a pretty amusing joke paragraph under "Regional customs" about the unique Sicilian species the "reindeer goat" trecking through the snow [sic] on Christmas Eve to receive the blessing of the Marchese of the village (himself a Wikipedian, I have no doubt) from the balcony of his palazzo. I regretfully removed the paragraph some hours later. But yesterday, Dec 23, 66.56.91.185 (another anon, not, I believe, identical with the Marchese) reinstated it ! C'mon, folks, a joke's a joke. It's over now. If you don't believe me, google for the reindeer goats, break out a map to check out the Sicilian climate, and, finally, check the Marchese's Christmas blessing in a Latin dictionary. I'm removing it again.--Bishonen | (Talk) 21:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Constantine

I thought that Constantine I set Xmas to be Dec 25 to coincide with an important pagan holiday? Someone, other than myself, should look into that.

That's true. It was set to coincide/replace the holiday of Dies Natales Invicti Solis.

Christmas and political correctness?

Could this article benefit from a paragraph on political correctness? It seems like in recent years the public celebration of Christmas (even in secular ways) has caused controversy due to the holiday's religious nature. Meanwhile, some Christians have become upset that public celebration and recognition of one of their favorite holidays is becoming almost taboo.

Would this article benefit from a short paragraph about this? - Chardish

Perhaps a separate article, "The Christmas Controversy?" Is it a religious holiday or a secular holiday with religious origins? Either way, is it appropriate for the holiday to completely dominate a society (I'm speaking from a US perspective here) simply because the majority of its citizens are Christians? Is downplaying Christmas or acknowledging other holidays really an "attack" on Christmas as the Fox News Channel (and other conservatives) would have us believe? --207.69.138.10 05:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A "short paragraph on political correctness" wouldn't be a single paragraph for very long, I bet: it would be bound to provoke the usual acrimonious Religious Right versus Liberal battle and edit war along the usual US lines (speaking from a non-US perspective here), as seen in so many places on Wikipedia. I think it would take over the Christmas article, discourage anybody interested in contributing on other aspects, and leave the page yet another charred battleground. I agree with anon, a separate article is a good idea, with a link from this one.--Bishonen | (Talk) 08:33, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sections

Would anyone else be in favour of moving/copying some content onto sub-pages? Christmas dinner for example, is blank at the moment, as are Christmas traditions, Christmas worldwide, The_Christmas_story, and presumably Santa_Claus has lots of people writing on his own page without needing to repeat their work here. Ojw 12:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be good. The references to the subtopics should still be 1-2 sentences, to make coherent narrative. Stan 13:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
!!!Hey! That's not the way to do it, Ojw! You've deleted half the article without even a comment in the edit field! Please create appropriate subpages, and give detailed info about them on this page, before deleting material. And before that, please give the people who've worked on the article a chance to respond to your original proposal. Being bold is one thing, halving an article that was just voted a Featured article (were you aware of this?) is another. I'm confident you have good intentions, but I'm going to revert to the version before yours now (see how I say so on the Talk page before I actually do it?), and look forward to more discussion on this page, of your apparently quite drastic plans for Christmas.--Bishonen | (Talk) 14:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Many apologies, and thanks to everyone who did it properly after my attempt. There seemed to be lots of sections which were distinct enough in their style and content to warrant a wikipedia entry of their own, although you're quite correct that my edit was the wrong way to do it. Regards, etc. Ojw 21:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
====Thank You, Bish====. At least, before the newcomers chopped it up, they asked for opinions anyway. They might go back a couple of months and see how far this article has come to date. In the aftermath of this ongoing Holiday frenzy cooler heads will hopefully prevail.Sfahey 18:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crimble?/Crimbo?

I'm from the American South, and I've never heard the term "crimble." Probably, we should explain who is it that affectionately refers to Christmas as crimble, and why. --Carl 20:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same here, I'm nuking it. Google gets 950-10000 results, depending on if you include Christmas in the search. Xmas gets 13 million results; I'd say that's a pretty good threshhold. =p Either way, it seems either a slang or a very localized term. If someone can explain just where we might hear Crimble, then there might be a case for readdition (but not bolded). --Golbez 10:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
As a non-native English speaker, who once met some-one from Liverpool - I think the expression is "Crimbo" and crimble is a topping for an apple pie. I humbly suggest this, I could be wrong Giano 11:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm from England and I have never heard the expression "Crimble" until reading this article. "Crimbo" is used a lot, but "Crimble" is about as common as a hurricane hitting Kent. Which, for those of you who don't know much, isn't very common. Anyway, I reckon we axe it.
I'm also from England. "Crimbo" is Scouse. To describe it as British English would have most Limeys scratching their heads. I have just edited the main page accordingly. I would guess usage of "Crimbo" outside Liverpool was popularised by Brookside - it was certainly used a lot in that soap (very memorable Christmas episode involving a turkey, a microwave and a priceless LP). Stroika 18:37 20 December 2005.

Philosophical perspective

Removed somewhat diffuse exchange on contribution by Gabriel Kent, please see History. The upshot of it is described by Sfahey thus:

I have difficulty following the above series of exchanges/events/misunderstandings, but it still remains that the segment in question is not properly part of an encyclopedia article on Christmas. At best it is POV. Perhaps, since one COULD describe it as sort of a compendium of various abstract POV's, it might have its own page, but I plan to move it from its current location.Sfahey 00:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gabriel's text has now been moved by Sfahey to Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas. A happy new year to all!--Bishonen | Talk 08:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas articles

Here are a couple of articles on Christmas (and Easter). The Origins of Christmas and Easter Article on Christmas and Easter Please read and post your comments. daf

I'm no expert, but this information seems to jibe with the current Christmas article's references to saturnalia and other pagan customs having been incorporated into the traditions of Christian holidays.I wouldn't say however, as the lead sentence of this web site recklessly states, that "Christmas" and "Easter" are therefore "not at all Christian ". sfahey, 1/3/05

Christmas points

I noticed with interest the general application of the word 'christian'. It is important to note that there are fundamentaly different views regarding practices and doctrines amongst christianity and christians. It is important to note in comments e.g. Christmas, whether this is a biblical scriptural event, practice or custom, or doctrinal with regards to one or more sections of christianity.

With the entry of Christmas, it is of note that no reference to christmas, or command/custom to celebrate the birth of Christ can be found in the bible. Refer to many encyclopedia references with regards to the origin of christmas.

Probably a good way is to structure a section specifically on the origin of Christmas, showing the multiple influences and the proclamation of Constantine, after which the celebration became popular.

Hard to quarrel with most of this, except that the article clearly delineates the differences between "biblical" events, secular customs, and the pagan roots of the current celebrations. In any event, the recent additions to the LEAD PARAGRAPH are clearly "over the top" for this section, and will be (at least) moved.Sfahey 22:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NB Christian definition

Given the latest number of adds and deletes, I notice what is surfacing here is a difference with reference to the term 'Christian', and who may or may not encompass this group.

The article states that Christmas is a holiday in the christian calendar. As the term 'Christian' denotes being a follower of Christ, it is incorrect to state this as a 'Christian' holiday, as this is a denominational holiday, or rather, a holiday instituted not by biblical directive or command, but rather by tradition and other events, and celebrated by certain church or denominational groups. At least clearly define Christmas as not having a biblical origin in the heading, and not being celebrated by all who profess to follow christ, then all else are ok.

Let me illustrate. If people in my cultural region or country decide to implement a new holiday, non biblical, - lets say 'Christian fishing day' that is partly political, partly tradition etc, I would be incorrect to categorically say that this is a holiday in the 'Christian calendar', celebrated by 'Christians'. Of course I can say it has precedent in the bible as 'fishing' played an important part in the apostles lives. (For those that do not get the point, use another example e.g. a new day called 'Christ healing day'?) It would apply to our group and circumstances only, not to the greater whole. The same with Christmas. Just because some denominations, eg the Catholic and Protestant churches 'decided' to celebrate an added holiday, does not mean all followers of Christ do.

I am sure there are many that find the origin and practice of christmas offensive. Contributors have agreed to the pagan origins and non christian practices involved, and yes it has become a 'de facto' holiday celebrated by the masses, but is definitely not 'de jure', from the source of christian beliefs. Please note that it is not my intention to be controversial in this regard, and I do not disrespect a day that carries importance to others. However, from a 'knowledge correctness' point of view, in favour of precise knowledge, this should be adapted to reflect correctly.

hmmmm. I've thought about this at length. "Christmas" I think "began" in the early years of Christianity, when there was but one Christian church. Things first splintered after Constantine, and I think most if not all "Christians" continued to celebrate Christmas, albeit settling on different dates. What are the exceptions to Christians recognizing Christmas? Unless I'm missing something big here, as long as the article goes (deeply) into the pagan roots and secular present-day aspects of the holiday, I don't see a problem with introducing it as a "Christian" holiday. Sfahey 16:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Christian?

There has been some discussion on whether Christmas is Christian or not, because it is non-Biblical. It seems to me it mostly rests on what definition is used for Christian. It seems that the article is written int the sense of as christianity = 'what the majority of those who profess themselves to be christians do'. This is not necessarily unfair, but is necessarily innacurate. A major example of a christian group which does not celebrate christmas is the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are christian in the sense that they profess to follow Christ, believe the Bible, and would likely label themselves christians. However, the mainstream christian groups define christianity as groups which follow a particular set of doctrines. Generally this set of doctrines includes the trinity (interestingly a term also not found in the Bible) which the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe. Thus the complication of the issue starts to come to light. JW's would likely call themselves christians, and reject christmas, but mainstream christianity would say they are not christian. Some members of mainstream christianty are more fundamenatalists in their outlook and also reject celebrating christmas, and hence somewhat resent the implication in the article that christmas is christian.

So what I'm saying (after all this ramble) is that those christians which don't celebrate christmas need to reconcile themselves with the fact that not all christian groups follow the Bible, or do so in the same way or to the same extent (else they would all agree). When you label yourself a christian without delving into the nitty-gritty details you are accepting a very wide and loose definition of the term.

Perhaps it could all be addressed by adding a sentence to the effect that some religious groups reject the celebration of christmas due to its non-Biblical orgins?

(I see note 3 has a reference to past rejection of christmas, perhaps add a note there that some groups to this day object to christmas?)

"Merge"?

I don't understand the intent of the recently added "merge" comments atop the "Secular customs" section of "Christmas". This is a featured article, and large changes should be made only after careful deliberation. Clearly the two subsidiary articles are repetitious and should be disambiguated/merged however. Sfahey 22:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • It was me who added the tag after accidentally discovering that more or less the same content is triplicated, with little differences in length and depth. Thus, either the content from the two other pages should be integrated here, or this page should have a short version with a reference to another article discussing the issue in more detail. In any case, whoever edits this article should attempt to preserve featured article quality. Martg76 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone has just arbitrarily moved the entire "Christmas around the world" section. Again, this section ... largely as is ... was part of the article when it became a "featured article." I think whoever did this should either return the section ... and the other section he/she moved ... to the main Christmas page, or compose an abbreviated version of the section rather than just dumping it onto another page. Other opinions, please? Sfahey 19:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Christmas

I think this recent addition should be moved out of its prominent spot, to become a paragraph in the section on dates of celebration. Thoughts? Sfahey 28 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Noel

Noel redirects to this article, yet there is no mention of Noel within the article itself...someone care to fix this? (either by removing the redirect so it can have its own article, or providing the appropriate info in this one) -- jiy 05:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Noel just mean Christmas? DirkvdM 08:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that...it should probably be mentioned in the article so those as ignorant as me can be relieved -- jiy 09:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nöel is French for Christmas, and may also refer more specifically to a Christmas song. I don't think it needs to be defined here any more than "Navidad" or "Weinachten", etc. I suggest the link be removed, unless some clever wikipedian can link it to the French article on "Nöel." Sfahey 16:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ehm, ... that link can be found in the sidebar on the left ... Or do you mean remove the redirect? Why bother? DirkvdM 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I was mainly reacting to the original suggestion, where whoever follows "Noel" to "Christmas" won't find out what the word means.Sfahey 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Though it is French in origin, it is also an English word. It's listed in both http://www.m-w.com/ and http://www.dictionary.com/, and some traditional English carols have "Noel" in the words http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/r/frstnoel.htm. Those other words for Christmas aren't in the English dictionary. Furthermore, Noel is sometimes used as a first name, and since many names come from the Bible (Aaron, James, etc) I, in my ignorance, thought maybe Noel was some figure from the Bible. I think the word is widely enough known to English speakers, but some people (like myself) may not know what it is. The article should clear that up. --jiy 02:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You figured it out, you clear it up :) . DirkvdM 09:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Noel, as a name, is pronounced as one syllable. Noel, as Christmas, is pronounced as two, probably owing to the umlaut thing over the o. I assumed they were differeny words. I don't really know what the point of this is now. I'm rambling. Skittle 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Jiy, I just had the same experience as you and was just as annoyed. I had to read the French article to find out what the origins of Noël were. You are right -- the word is also an English word and is notable so I agree it should have it's own Wikipedia article or its own section within this article. It is analagous to Yule in that it is an English word used for Christmas which is used as the main word for Christmas in a different Indo-European language. So "noël" probably deserves the same attention as "yule". Donama 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not just alter the opening statement to "Christmas (literally, Mass of Christ), also known as Noel) . . ." CrazyInSane 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. And if it looks a bit clumsy, please fix it so it looks nice. I updated both the Noël and Noel articles too. Noel now redirects to Noël and Noël is a disambig page pointing to both the Christmas and Christmas carol articles. I also included the word origin there, since it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Donama 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Suicide rates myth

I'm concerned about the mention of a "spike" of suicides during the Christmas season. That's a myth that has been long debunked (e.g., http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/07_adolescent_risk/suicide/dec14%20suicide%20report.htm and http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040105-000026.html). I suggest replacing it with accurate information. John DeBerry

A smart Christmas

Garzo deleted this external link: [link removed here also] nice present, great idea!

I put it here, I think it's a very smart link!

You got an system spam message for adding the link. It might not be strictly commercial, but it is canvassing for support for a campaign. This is an encyclopaedia article about Christmas. This link is not encyclopaedic. --Gareth Hughes 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
And note that I removed it from this talk page as just another way to try to get free publicity. Spam is as spam does. DreamGuy 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This is your opinion, in my opinion Christmas nowadays is the symbol of money and consumism [consumerism], of expansive [expensive] and useless presents, is the day of rich people in a world of people that are diyng [dying] because nobody helps them. My smart link is about an important topic: smart Christmas, smart presents, smart ideas... not your boring expansive words of nothing: a smart concrete action to help other people in the most important day of the year. Your christmas page seems not like an encyclopedia, but the contrary: a beatiful [beautiful] picture of Christmas, in a beatiful [beautiful] church of beatiful [beautiful] rich and ignorant people. Excuse me, My best regards. Happy Christmas.

Thank you for your corrections... I'm Italian and I don't write English very well. If you find some other mistakes please, correct them. Here my association have a big website: [link removed here also] if you find some other mistakes please tell me. Non only grammar mistakes, mistakes of every kind. I like to help and to be helped. Garzo, do you like to help or you are very rich and don 't need a help for christmas and so you think nobody need and so delete my little smart ideas for a smart christmas?

Empty section

If this is going to appear on the main page at some point- its be nice if the empty section Regional customs and celebrations had some content. Fair use rationales should be added for the fair use images in the article too.--nixie 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

December 24th and Christmas in Germany

In some parts of Germany Christmas is traditionally celebrated on Christmas Eve (Dec 24) rather than Christmas Day (Dec 25). The (catholic) Christmas masses are held on Christmas Eve's afternoon (for children -- oftenly with a nativity play performed by children) and evening (for adults) with the presents being opened afterwards at home, with the family gathered around the christmas tree.

Additionally, unlike the American tradition with the presents being opened on Christmas Day, no stockings are put up, but the children polish their boots and put them in front of their doors on Saint Nicolaus's (Saint Claus, Santa Claus, whatever you want to call him -- looks pretty much like the good ol' red-and-white Santa Claus just with a Bishop's hat) day, which is several weeks before Christmas (Dec 5th I think).

The presents are traditionally delivered by the Christ Child (not to be confused with Baby Jesus -- it's essentially a young angel that also picks up the children's wishlists), although Father Christmas is equally well, or, thanks to Americanization, even better, established as the giftbringer and wishlist-reader (essentially he's the same guy as the American Santa Claus minus the reindeers, North Pole and elves, although Americanization seems to establish that stuff as well -- he's closer to the Eastern European original).

The day Christmas is celebrated (24th/25th) as well as the giftbringer (angel/Santa) has always been a regional thing in Germany as far as I know. I think the more catholic communities tended to have a preference for the Christ Child, but I'm not sure about any place other than Cologne/North-Rhine Westphalia and even here it varies between the families.

I think the tradition of the presents being delivered and opened on Dec 24th (rather than the morning of Dec 25th) as well as the Christ Child is common in more places than just some random parts of Germany, but I don't know enough about other regions with that tradition as that I could add anything to the article.

I was just wondering because the article doesn't seem to make any mention of the 24th serving as most important day of Christmas at all. I'm aware of this tradition (like many others) fading through Americanization (like it or not, but American media, and tv in particular, has a strong influence on such traditions in other countries) and the odd shift from generation to generation, but I do think it deserves a mention. -- Ashmodai 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

// I also feel it deserves to mentioned that Dec 24 is what is considered xmas in sweden. Everyone here that I meet are 100% sure that xmas is celebrated on the 24th all over the world. 25th is certainly a holiday, but it is assumed that one needs a day of rest after all the food, is all. DD//

Use of the term Modernist to describe the beliefs of the origin of Christmas

The introduction of this article uses the term Modernist to describe the origins of christmas:

"Modernists contend that 25 December was only adopted in the 4th century as a Christian holiday by the Roman Emperor Constantine, to encourage a common religious festival for both the Christians and the Pagans."

Whereas the body of the article refers to Scholars when describing the origins of christmas:

"most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for the pagan Festival of Saturn celebrations of the winter solstice."

I think the introduction should use the word Scholar. According to the article, if "most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century", then Modernists must be "most scholars". So to make the article clearer I suggest replacing Modernist with Scholar. Any objections? Jamie 16:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Modernists almost sounds like a put down. DreamGuy 21:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FA on the 25th

Surely not. I mean, it's twee. Are we going to feature all the HallmarkTM holidays when they occur now? And what happened to the straw poll that showed large-scale opposition to this? Blech.
brenneman(t)(c) 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to main page articles of relevance to a particular date, and this would certainly be one. Last year I don't think it quite made "feature" status in time. Sfahey 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors in article - Viewpoints

First, keep in mind that the bible has denounced divination or looking to the stars for advice, mentioned at Deuterononmy 18:10-12.

Second, the star FIRST led the wise men to Herod (Matt 2:9) whose intent was to kill Jesus. Surely God wanted Jesus dead. Why would God do this since he hates divination? Through a dream in verse 12, they were warned to not return to Herod and leave there way. The intention of Herod becomes clear when he decreed all children under the age of 2 to be killed. Also, per the custom, the wise men gave gifts to Jesus and his family, but notice they received nothing from them. The celebration of Saturnalia, however, gifts were exchanged.

Third, angels told the of Jesus to the shepards, as opposed to a star later.

Fourth, there is no command given to celebrate Jesus' birth. That is why his birthdate is not in the bible,because it is not necessary. However, we can trace the start of his ministry via Daniel's prophecy in chapter 9. Furthermore, only 2 birthdays are mentioned in the bible, Pharoh's and Herod's. Pharoh at his party killed the chief baker (Genesis 40:20-22), while John the Baptizer was beheaded for Herod (Matt 14:6-10). Both examples are not in a good light.

Fifth, the day itself is Christ Mass, or Mass of Christ. But Mass is the Catholic way of celebrating the Last Supper. That is celebrated though for them in the March-April months. Mass has nothing to do with Christ's birth, yet that is what we call it.

Sixth, the last day of Jesus life was Nissan 14, the day Jews celebrated the passover (Luke 22:7). We do not have to guess at the date of his death. His ministry was also 3.5 years long, which would put the date of his birth more towards October than December.

Seventh, what do people think about this time of year? Buying gifts to exchange? Jesus in a manger? Santa Claus, where does he come from and fit in? Doesn't the fact that the Saturnaila and how people did the same practices now but for so called Christian reasons mean anything? I might as well add, what does the easter bunny have to do with Jesus dying?

So, what do you think should be changed? I can't quite follow your critique to understand what problems you think exist with the article. For example, how does the Bible's condemnation of divination cause the article to be incorrect? Jpers36 14:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, i think your missing the point mate. Regardless of you believe in Christmas or not, the article portrays the current belief of Christmas. Wikipedia isn't a portal to debate whether a religious belief is right or wrong, rather it is a knowledge base. Jamie 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to "Errors in Article" - Apologetic Response

Firstly, I'm not a "licensed" apologist. I'll give my best response to this.

1. Following an abnormally bright star is not the same thing as looking into the stars for a message.

The verses in Deutronomy 18:10-12 speak against magicians in general:

  • Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead."

    The Wikipedia states "Divination is the practice of ascertaining information from supernatural sources." This could even refer to Angels! Obviously he is referring to diviners who heap the title of diviners on themselves and practice divination contrary to God's Religion. (tea leaves, looking into sheep guts for messages, etc.) In a modern context, this is speaking against people who stir their alphabet soup and think they see a message telling them something, when it says "NQEBA GOR PUGLO" If God spoke through alphabet soup, He would make it very obvious. It is not specifically looking to the stars. Taking one word out context does not justify your reasoning.

According to a footnote in the New American Bible for Matthew 2:2

  • We saw his star: it was a common ancient belief that a new star appeared at the time of a ruler's birth. Matthew also draws upon the Old Testament story of Balaam, who had prophesied that "A star shall advance from Jacob" (Nm 24, 17), though there the star means not an astral phenomenon but the king himself.

2. Your interpretation of Matthew 2:9 is wrong. When Herod saw the star, he called his magi together to figure out when the star appeared. He then sent out his magi to "search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage." They then followed the star, which had not moved since its initial rising, and led to Jesus. Read the chapter, not the sentence. God did not intend Jesus to die at that time, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus didn't die at that time. God never makes mistakes.

3. The sheperds and the wise men are not the same. The sheperds also visited Jesus and payed homage.

4. Not being commanded to celebrate is not the same thing as being commanded not to celebrate. When your Messiah is born, then celebration of his birthday is fitting thing to do, no? That's why Christians celebrate His birth. It doesn't have to be the exact day. It's the same celebration, regardless of the date it is.

5. Wow. Do you have any idea what the Mass is? Mass is the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Body of Christ. It is celebrated every Church service. It is celebrated for forgiveness of sins, as in ancient Jewish tradition. This is the most Pure Sacrifice given by God. By trans-substantiation, bread and wine become Body and Blood through the Holy Spirit. Thanksgiving is done, and the Eucharistic hosts are recieved by the people. There is only one sacrifice, though celebrated many times. This is done by the fact that time is irrelevant to God and the Holy Spirit. Research a little bit more before you utter one of the most horrible blasphemies against the Catholic Church possible. The Eucharist is one of the most Sacred, most core beliefs to the Catholic Church. The sacrifice is still offered on Christmas.

6. Yes. As I said... It doesn't have to be the exact day. It's the same celebration, regardless of the date it is. It is celebrated by tradition on December 25th, the end of the Advent season. During the Advent season, Catholics prepare themselves for the coming of the Lord (the second coming, that is) while reflecting on the first coming's prophecies, stories, prophecies for the second coming, and the season is also a time of intense self examination and penance. It's a time of fasting, like a mini-lent. Christmas is after advent by tradition. It's just the way it is.

7. Christians don't reflect the ideas of commercialism in this season. That's secular. Instead, the idea of giving is for promotion of goodwill and stewardship. Santa Claus evolved from ideas of Saint Nicholas, a preacher who gave to the poor by sneaking into their houses (versions of this story vary). The idea of Santa Claus exploded from there. Mainly it's a good way for kids to learn to be good for rewards that may not be immediately discernable.

Many pagan traditions were warped by preachers converting the pagans until they reflected Christian ideas and had no reference to pagan gods or beliefs anymore. This helped the pagans understand Christianity better. It's a common thing in history that you give examples in someone's own experience in explaining something. It breaks down barriers and communicates the idea better.

The Easter bunny is not a core Christian belief. In fact it's not a Christian belief. It's just a way to allow Children to wake up bright-eyed and joyful. Kids like having fun, you know. Easter is a day of celebration. Jesus died on Good Friday anyway, not Easter. He rose from the dead on Easter, the third day of his death. (Friday, Saturday, Sunday)

If anyone is Ordained and Catholic out there and wants to correct me, go ahead.

24.183.61.204 00:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Anonymous Apologist

Messiah POV issue

"Christians believe that Jesus's birth, or nativity, fulfills the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin and bridge the separation between God and mankind." seems problematic. The traditional Jewish view on the Messiah specifies that the Messiah will do particular things which Jesus did not do. Christians either adopt a different view of what the Messiah is suppossed to do, or say that Jesus will come back and do those things later. As it stands now, this sentence takes a POV position on who is right about what the requirements are.

The Christmas article seems like a poor place to explain the differences between Judaism and Christianity, but it also seems necessary to mention that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, so I don't think this article should be deleted. For now I've removed "from Judaism", but I'm not sure that's a good fix.

Woty 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting filled with crap

As we get closer to December 25th, this article will be filled with more and more random crap. Since it is supposed to be featured on the main page on December 25th, I would suggest that someone on December 24th compare the current version to the version when the article first became Featured, and only include the most vital changes (spelling, POV). Most of the random holidaycruft that people are adding can go. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 21:38

  • Here's the latest diff comparing the content when it became Featured (a year ago), to now. Barely any of the content is still the same. Is this even worthy of Featured Article status still?? The original supporters of the FAC might not support this version. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 21:46

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Christmas for more problems I've found. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 23:05

Christmas Deserves Its Own Article

I, for one, am glad that this article is not merged with "holiday spirit" as when I came to this site it was "Christmas" in particular for which I was looking. I really didn't want an article on "Holiday Spirit" but an article on "Christmas" and that is what I found. Thank you.

You might be interested in War on Christmas. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the suggestion was to merge Holiday spirit (which despite its name is very much biased toward a Western, Christian outlook) into the Christmas article. Holiday spirit should actually probably be replaced with a redirect to Holiday, or if renamed to Christmas Spirit be replaced with a redirect here. Theshibboleth 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lock article

I'm going to try to bring this article back into its featured article quality state, but until then I recommend that it be locked to editing. Theshibboleth 06:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The only way we could be sure that it is Featured quality still is to nominate it for FAC again. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 12:59
  • I disagree - the nomination to depricate to non-featured status is sufficient to ratify its featured status, assuming the changes made persuade enough people to oppose the deprication. Trödel•talk 13:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

jesus wasnt born in winter.

Its clear from the scripture that jesus wasnt born in winter... When the shepperds saw the angels come down to announce jesus's birth they wouldnt have been in the fields in december, The Palestinian winters are to cold.

  • According to the article chronology of Jesus, mediterratean climates allow shepherds of that area to be in the fields during December Pictureuploader 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Christmas and cultural diversity

If this section remains a list it will rapidly become unmanageable. Presumably, the (IMO ridiculous) "War on Christmas" cultural debate/propaganda campaign merits its own article and this subsection (or a subsection of this subsection) should summarize the major points rather than starting a new list of "evidence" of something or other. --Dystopos 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific problems with the article

Whether or not this article is featured in time for Christmas, we should at least aim toward getting it to featured status at some point. So, let's item-by-item fix the problems with this artilce. I'll start.

  1. What does "hight-tone" drama mean in the "Economics of Christmas" section?
  2. What does "rich production values" mean in the "Economics of Christmas section? Theshibboleth 08:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. More: To whom is the use of Holiday instead of Christmas condescending? Christians or non-Christians. Presumably non-Christians, although perhaps what is meant here is that Christians find it disrespectful of Christmas's sanctity. Theshibboleth 09:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. From the "Theories regarding the origin of the date of Christmas" section, "[...] which must have been the date of the Nativity there." Why? Is there some sort of Christian theological understanding I am missing? If so, this needs to be explained.
  5. The section "Theories regarding the origin of the date Of Christmas" suggests that the main reason there is any support for the idea that the festival of Sol Invictus and Saturnalia were actually meant to displace Christmas and not the other way around is that there is evidence that Christmas was practiced before the other two holidays. However, it is a leap of faith to go from Christmas came before Saturnalia/Sol Invictus festival to Saturnalia/Sol Invictus festival was meant to displace Christmas. This sounds like an argument from ignorance and should thus probably be deemphasized in the article. Theshibboleth 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas on January 4th

With December 25th in the Old Style Julian calendar now referring to January 4th in the Gregorian calendar, shouldn't Christmas now be celebrated on January 4th? Dates for other events, such as Isaac Newton's date of birth have been shifted to reflect this so I'm curious why Christmas wasn't also shifted.

December 25, 4 BC on the Julian calendar corresponds to December 23 on the Gregorian calendar. I did the conversion here. For 2006, Julian Christmas would be January 7 on the Gregorian calendar. Where did you get January 4 from?
Writers on Russian history use the expression "October Revolution" for the Communist takeover in 1917. This is an unconverted Julian date. American dates are converted (notably Washington's birthday), but this is not otherwise customary.Kauffner 09:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

so-called "alternative holidays"

I find the section entitled "Alternative Holidays" to be very offensive. As a highly religious Jew, I feel that Chanukhah is in no way an ALTERNATIVE to Christmas. It is separate and in no way should be compared. Doing so only leads to conflict. In addition, I know several Christians who celebrate Chanukhah.

Also, Eid ul-Fitr and Kawanza are not "alternatives." It comes off as highly offensive to term holidays of other cultures and religions as "alternatives" to what is Christian and so-called "normative" American. It holds the implication that to not celebrate Christmas or to celebrate one of these "alternative" holidays is somehow going against the grain.

  • I agree that it is not polite or respectful to consider them alternatives, but they are, in fact, considered that way by many people in the US across cultural lines. We should, as encyclopedists, make reference to these conflicting views. (See the third paragraph of Hanukkah "Hanukkah gained increased importance with many Jewish families in twentieth century America, including large numbers of secular Jews who do not celebrate other key holy days, such as Sukkot, who wanted a Jewish alternative to the intense Christmas celebrations that often overlap with Hanukkah." or the last sentence of Kwanzaa; "[Some] view Kwanzaa as an opportunity to incorporate elements which speak to their particular ethnic heritage into holiday observances and celebrations during the Christmas season.". The case of Eid ul-Fitr is much more of a stretch, but the creation of "Eid Greetings" stamps by the USPS and the appearance of "Happy Eid" on greeting cards along with Christmas greetings is reality, even if it (rightfully) offends purists of any faith or tradition. --Dystopos 15:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Upon reflection, I can see how making this article more global and less "Americentric" would tend to push these "alternatives" (which are largely forged under US commercial-cultural pressure) out of the mainstream of encyclopedic coverage. They might better belong in a "Christmas in the United States" article. --Dystopos 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I am of both Jewish and Christian heritage and actually celebrate Hanuka in addition to Christmas, so for me it's not an "alternative". I was thinking about that language the first time I read the article, and how Christmas would probably be considered the alternative to Hanuka in Israel. Before that section had been titled "Alternative secular holidays" which itself had problems
  1. because of the rather derogatory sense of "alternative", and
  2. because it implied that Christmas is a secular holiday
The information about Hanuka was before in some other part of the article.
That said, I think perhaps there is something to the idea that the gift-giving traditions of Hanuka have been emphasized because of the impact of Christmas, at least in the US; the Christocentric and somewhat anti-Semitic idea that Hanuka is a fabricated holiday is patent nonsense though. Probably any Christmas influenced on Hanuka should be discussed at the Hanuka article, not here. Theshibboleth 03:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
   god.... marry christmaquanzahanaka or w/e go eat a beef hot dog. play a perfessional sport. spend money...do something out of the draddle. 
                                   -Defiant Jew eating pork rines..mmm mmm good.

Link

A link was reinserted to fisheaters, previously removed as part of a sustained campaign of linkspamming spanning over 100 articles. Please discuss why you think this link is justified in this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the link back in because there is no other external link like it and because it is a pretty complete overview of traditional Catholic customs and devotions that not only traditional Catholics, but mainstream Catholics and people interested in historical Catholic traditions would benefit from. Malachias111 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The link to the "New Advent" Catholic site already exists; that's a pretty good website, well known, much used, and admired bu web users worldwide. Why is another Catholic link needed? Thanks...KHM03 18:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the Fisheaters site explains the customs and devotions day by day, from the Advent calendars, Jesse Trees, mangers, Advent wreaths, the O Antiphons, the posadas, all up to Christmas itself, the Epiphany and Candlemas. It has all the prayers and rituals and downloads for readings... Malachias111 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So does the article. I am not convinced. Fisheaters has a very distinct perspective. It's proper to link from sites discussing issues of Catholicism, but I can see no good reason to link it from a mainstream article on Christmas. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Because of the past link spamming - I would suggest this be not included until the link can be verified that it is notable for this article. I reviewed it quickly and seem similar to the article itself, but more detail. Trödel•talk 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup. But I would heartily encourage Malachias to create new articles for anything for which (s)he considers Wikipedia provides inadequate coverage. Sans linkspam, of course. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, much of what the Fisheaters site has on it...the O Antiphons, Advents wreaths, etc....is not distinctly Catholic, but more general Christian, so it hardly seems necessary. KHM03 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference

I inserted the book The Mystical Interpretation of Christmas (1920, from 1910's writings of the author) since it contains a view of Christmas from the perspective of Occultism and Esoteric Christianity/Mystic Christianity, which examines aspects of Christmas generally unnoticed by traditional/mainstream denominations in Christianity or by historical research. --GalaazV 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed social impact section

I removed this section - it is unsourced and is suspected of NPOV - I don't think it contributes in its current state to the article being featured.

Social impact of Christmas
Because of the focus on celebration, friends, and family, people who are without these or who have recently suffered losses are more likely to suffer from depression during Christmas. This increases the demands for counseling services during the period.
It is widely believed that the number of suicides spikes during the holiday season, although the peak months for suicide are actually May and June. Because of holiday celebrations involving alcohol, drunk driving-related fatalities typically also increase.
Non-Christians in predominantly Christian countries may be left bereft of entertainment around Christmas when stores close and friends depart on vacations.. The stereotype of recreation for non-Christians during Christmas is "movies and Chinese food", as movie theaters remain open to bring in holiday dollars.
In North America the naming of various holiday terms has become controversial. There is use of non-religious names like holiday tree and winter break in place of Christmas tree and Christmas break. Reactions to these attempts to include non-Christians are mixed, with many responding that renaming the events does nothing to hide their meaning and is condescending.

I suggest that after editing this could return to the article. Trödel•talk 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other religious holidays occuring near Christmas...

I removed the link to Kwanzaa as it is not a religious celebration, but a cultural one. Ramsquire 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other holidays occuring near Christmas

I'm thinking of either deleting this section of the Christmas article (after all it is not germane to an understanding of Christmas) or simply deleting Eid. Eid usually occurs October or November, and isn't really celebrated around Christmas or in Winter. I would like some input from Wiki first, however? Ramsquire 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That seems like a good idea for practical POV reasons. See the discussion above at Talk:Christmas#so-called "alternative holidays". --Dystopos 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've made a stab at contextualizing this section. I welcome other editorial opinions since I'm far from expert on these issues:
Other religious holidays that occur near Christmas have adopted, particularly in the United States, parallel or alternative traditions similar to Christmas traditions, such as the sending of greeting cards, singing of songs, exchange of gifts, and decorating of the home. The best known example is Hanukkah, which has developed into a "Jewish Christmas" in the minds of some. The modern observance of Kwanzaa among African Americans is also often considered a "black" alternative or supplement to Christmas. Less closely connected, but still notable, are the appearance of "Eid Greetings" for the feast of Eid ul-Fitr at the culmination of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The conception of these holidays as "alternative" Christmasses" is controversial and far from universal. Each of these traditions has its own origins and observances absent of any connection to Christmas. This idea was parodied in the television sitcom Seinfeld with the invention of Festivus, "the festival for the rest of us."
--Dystopos 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Snipping extraneous links

The amount of linkage in this article is just plain ugly. It's obvious no editor has gone over it in awhile as sentences have been added over the weeks and more and more stuff was linked. I'm using Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context as my guideline here. In general,

  • Link full dates only. Solitary years or days/months should not be linked.
  • Link only the first occurrence of a term. I don't even want to tell you how many times Christians was linked in the article.

I cleaned up a section but there's quite a bit more work that needs to be done, so get cracking! --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is why this article is no longer going to be featured on the main page. Nobody bothered to correct any of the problems listed here on the discussion page. It would've had a chance if even one person had stepped in and done a good rewrite of the article, but nobody did. I guess nobody cares about Christmas.  :-( --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, I'm copying my response from Raul's talk page:

I'm wondering why you relinked the dates on Christmas. This seems to go against the guidelines specified in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, which states that only full dates should be linked. Anyway, it's ridiculous for December 25 to be linked 20 different times on that page. It's unnecessary and it's ugly. And I'm not buying the argument about "date formatting preferences". People from Europe are not going to be confused by "December 25" and people from America are not going to be confused by "25 December". --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But December 25 needs to be at least once - it is entirely relevant for an article about a fixed festival to link to the day involved. Same goes with other significant dates. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can live with it being linked once. But twenty times is just ridiculous. Also, this article suffers from the same phrase being linked to many, many too many times. You don't even want to know how many times Jesus Christ and Christians are linked. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not make the guideline. In most articles, the ONLY reason to link dates is for date preferences to work - whatever else happened in that year or date is almost always irrelevant to the article, though sometimes "interesting" for other reasons. Actually perhaps wikipedia should fix it so date links only do the formatting & neither link nor appear as a link. December 25 now appears 12 times in the article. Several other dates also appear numerous times. I am sure that some editing could reduce the repetition of all dates. Enabling date preferences is a courtesy to the reader -- otherwise why even have them? --JimWae 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context does not say "full dates with years". It says--JimWae 21:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    Full dates; i.e., those that include the day and month. This allows the auto-formatting function for individual users' date preferences to work. Editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it
  • This means, not December, not 25, and not 2005 --JimWae 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Because of the way that wikipedia's date preferences work, all the linked dates appear to me in the format '25 December' whereas the dates that have been unlinked appear in the format 'December 25'. How is this any less ugly than linking all month/day references? As an aside, please note that breaking these preferences (which is what unlinking month/day dates does) will encourage edit wars over date formatting. JeremyA 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like we should lobby policy for there to be a way to specify "XXXXX is a date", but don't link it. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Anyone know where I should start to go about doing this? --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. Perhaps one of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a good place to start a discussion about it. JeremyA 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The guide says:
    What should not be linked
    Months, years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. (This is in contrast to full dates—see below.) ...
    What should be linked
    Full dates; i.e., those that include the day and month. This allows the auto-formatting function for individual users' date preferences to work. Editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it.
  • It says do NOT link solitary years (2005), nor solitary months (December), nor decades (1960s), nor centuries (1st Century). It says DO link dates that include day and month. --JimWae 01:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The guide also points out, correctly, that there is a tension between the desire to link this way, and the need to not overlink. Our first and foremost responsibility is to make a readable encyclopedia. Most of our readers don't have preferences, and in fact don't even log in. Creating an article that is unreadably littered with hundreds of blue links just to satisfy some sort of theoretical concern with honoring date format preferences for a tiny minority of readers is the equivelent cutting down an entire forest to save a single tree. Nandesuka 01:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Overlinking" is having too many links in the same paragraph, and having links for no particular reason at all (such as December 2005) - irrespective of what it links to. It is not about not enabling preferences. Seeing the blue links for say three instances of December 25 in one paragraph might encourage someone to edit out some of the repetitiveness. AND again, we are talking about 12 instances in this article - neither hundreds nor millions. Furthermore, preferences are theoretical only for those whose own are the same as those of article. Also the guide does not mention any tension about any "desire" to link "this way" - it mentions a tension between building the Web and overlinking. Dates are not linked to build a web -- they are linked, ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY, to enable preferences. Except perhpas for a few rare instances, there is NO other reason to link dates - whatever else happened on that date is usually irrelevant - or IF relevant should be in article itself --JimWae 02:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Nandesuka, an admin, seems not to have noticed my attempt at compromise - I did not link December 25 in every instance, though I did format every other date but it. Any thought that there is a rule about linking the first and only the first instance of a date is muddled - it would be better NEVER to link a date at all, than to have preferences enabled only once for each date and so be repeatedly changing the format used within the article. --JimWae 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see The Village Pump for more information on this issue. I'm trying to have something done about it and would appreciate your input there. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Can be annoying

There are many criticisms of Christmas apart from commercialization and waste. For some Christmas can be an annoyance because preparations and celebrations so dominate life not long after Thanksgiving. Christmas decorations may be left up until late in the summer and may be prominently displayed by towns. Christmas songs can get old after a few times, but can be impossible to escape. People who do not celebrate can cause tension. Laborers are likely to work on Christmas for the extra pay while the Holiday is effectively reserved for those who can afford to take that time off. The sheer scale and pervasiveness of Christmas as celebrated in some places has created a kind of backlash. Something about this conflict apart from the economics should be mentioned. -- M0llusk 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 25th

Christmas was on December 25 in the Julian Calendar. then we switched calendars, but we still celebrate it on December 25th, even though the old date is now moved to January 7th. Why?

By "we" do you mean Roman Catholics & most Protestants? The Eastern Church and Coptic Christians celebrate it on the 7th. The Armenians celebrate it on the 6th (or the 18th). Rklawton 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is slippage between the Julian and Gregorian calendar, so the correspondence between dates was different in ancient times. When Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar, Dec. 25 was intended to be the date of the winter solstice. Now the solstice is Dec. 21. To celebrate in January would only increase the error.Kauffner 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Page split

IMO, this page is quite confusing due to completely different "Christmas" views in the same part of the page. I suggest that the secular customs, commercialization and economics of Christmas (not religious customs and the actual background of Christmas) be moved to Christmas (secular) or Christmas (holiday), while this main page be kept for the religious day and the religious season. CrazyC83 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Santa doesn't exist in many countries - Article is incomplete

This article reads as if Santa was the only one bringing gifts. If you look to many central and eastern european countries you find that christmas gifts are brought by the Christkind and Santa only exists in the form of Saint Nicholas who brings fruits and sweets on 6th December. So this article is only good if you are from an anglo-amercian country.

why do kids edit this?

"A classic image of jolly old Saint Nick."

What child wrote that?

  • because it's the encylopedia that anyone with a high sped internet connection and little too much free time, can edit, just ask all the trolls and vandals—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .
Hey all, I know the edit may sound silly, but please do not bite the newcomers. There are many good editors at Wikipedia that are (or seem to be) underage. Jpers36 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I wrote that thank you very much. And I'm 28. If you don't like it, feel free to edit it yourself. Merry Christmas. jengod 07:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The edit doesn't even sound silly. Maybe "jolly old Saint Nick" isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia but it's not indicative of childishness. Certainly not as much as name-calling which some of you seem to indulge in. Who's the real "child" here?
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 08:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar

I am removing the claim that the birthdate of Jesus was the basis of the Gregorian Calendar. The Gregorian Calendar does not have any tie to the birthdate of Jesus, and in fact the new year had already been moved from December 25 to January 1 years before the Gregorian Calendar was proposed. The Anno Domini system of year numbering does begin with what was (incorrectly) believed to be Jesus' birth year, but should not be confused with the Gregorian Calendar, which it predates by several centuries. — Walloon 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1583 and the AD system of numbering is a part of it, although the same numbering system was often used with the earlier Julian calender. Before the Gregorian calendar was introduced, the beginning of the new year was celebrated on different days in different places. March 25 and April 1 (hence April's Fools Day) were common dates. January 1 was the "consular new year" in ancient Rome, the day an elected official would assume his position.Kauffner 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

Regarding that John the Baptist was conceived around the same time Jesus was: I read that when the Angel told Mary that she was with Child, that he told her that John the Baptist's mother was also with child even though she was barren, and she was 6 months pregnant - so doesn't that change the theory with the dates? (User:209.208.195.35).

Birth Place of Jesus...

I removed the link to Palestine, as at the time of Jesus's birth, Bethlehem was a city in the Roman province of Judea. Palestine is a later creation. I did add however, that Bethlehem is currently located in the West Bank. Ramsquire 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Commercialized?....

How did Christmas get to be so commercialized? Everyone celebrates it not knowing the origin... can someone please help explain that to me?

Winter holdays have been accompanied by giving gifts for all of recorded history, AFAIK.Ronabop 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

The list of links looks to me to be excessive. And yes, I even include the one I added myself. I think it should be pruned, possibly to zero - we have articles for most of the subjects covered, blogs are not sources so are not appropriate per WP:EL, and half of these look like vanispamcruft (or at least trivia) anyway.

Input appreciated, - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Box

The box with the picture in it is horrific, terrible, obscene can someone PLEASE change it. It takes all the dignity away from this article, and is unwikipedic!!!!!! Chooserr 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Asimov quote

The article states "As Isaac Asimov comments in his Guide to the Bible, "[C]onverts could join Christianity without giving up their Saturnalian happiness. It was only necessary for them to joyfully greet the birth of the Son rather than the Sun."

Then it said, which I cut: "Note that in Latin, the words for "son" ('filius') and "sun" ('sol') do not in the least bit resemble each other, making such pseudo-linguistic comparisons patently absurd."

The reader reads the material about Asimov, then gets told that its absurd. Well, if its absurd, why was it there? Personally, I don't think Asimov's word-play is absurd. He never claimed that the words sound alike in Latin. He's writing in English and made an English-only pun.

I think the quote should be cut. First off, Asimov has confused Saturnalia with the Sol Invictus festival. Saturnalia was a popular Roman holiday while Sol Invictus an official cult Aurelian created to promote a feeling of empire-wide unity.
The Asimov quote also feeds into the idea that Christmas was a plot to Christianize Saturnalia, and I see no basis to believe such a thing. The two holidays have separate origins, celebrate different things, and there is a full eight-day difference between them.Kauffner 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Rite v. Eastern Orthodox

Eastern Rite churches are not the same as Eastern Orthodox churches. Most of the former consider the Pope of Rome to be their supreme pontiff, while the latter do not. — Walloon 16:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==Magi/Wise men== The last edits claim that the usual translation/interpretations are incorrect, without any ref.; I plan to revert them unless these claims are somenow justified. Sfahey 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Winter Holiday?

Since when is Christmas referred to as "Winter Holiday" in the United States? I've heard "Holiday season," "Happy Holidays," etc., to refer to the time surrounding Christmas and New Year's Day, but I've never seen "Holiday" used to mean "Christmas" except in sarcastic opinion pieces. The fact that the words "Winter Holiday" are a link to Political Correctness make this look like vandalism, point of view, or both. If this is an actual usage, I'd like to see sources. See the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Elliotreed 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)