Talk:Christmas/Archive 4

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

Angels We Have Heard On High

Is it a live recording? The clarinet sounds live (and good btw) but i think the rest if not all is the Kontakt Player that comes w/ Sibelius 4. If you feel this is pointless and want to delet it, go ahead, i was just wondering. 75.82.85.120 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably all Sibelius. Clarinet softsynths tend to be of higher quality than most instruments.

Lengthy "History" section

This section has many subsections, and I think it may need to be either shortened or divided for better clarity. Perhaps for the pre-Christian sections and "Origin of Christian festival" section we could rename this umbrella section as "Origins", while the remainder could be "History"? I'm just shouting out suggestions but I think it may be a bit too long and uninteruppted as is current. Any comments would be appreciated, thanks. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (my Xmas) 19:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. - Eron Talk 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think these two subsections are the parts of the article that attact the most reader interest, so I don't follow the logic in wanting to shorten them. As I see it, the "pre-Christian" section is about various holidays other than Christmas, each of which has its own article elsewhere. I don't think this subsection it should be conflated with the "Origin" subsection, which is actually about Christmas where it came from.Kauffner 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
```Strong Agree```: The Origin of Christmas is the Nativity and that should go first. There is no Christmas without the Nativity. After all, Christmas is about the birth of Christ and the Nativity is about the birth of Christ. The History of Christmas does not exist without the Origin of Christmas. As a result, Saturnalia and Yule, from which some customs are clealy borrowed (i.e. drunkeness and singing) should go in the customs of Christmas section. However, the gambling and nudity mentioned have in the Saturnalia section have little to do with what anyone would call Christmas. This is not a point of view, this is a fact.Tiger5Claw5 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

I am setting up a template for Christmas related articles at Template:Christmas. I won't add it until it is up to high quality because I don't want to mess with the FA potential of this article. Remember 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what it currently looks like. Remember 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
v • d • e
Christmas
Main Christmas tree
Christianity
Folklore
Traditions
Media
Society

I think that looks great! Good work! MightyAtom 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Star of Bethlehem given twice? Not that I'm complaining. It's my masterpiece.
The main head should not be the same the first subhead ("Christmas"). You can call the first subhead "Main article".Kauffner 13:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's good, but like Kauffner said the first section shouldn't be called "Christmas". Actually, maybe all the entries in that section belong in the "Culture" section, because the birth of Jesus could be said to belong in "Christmas" just as much as Santa Claus or Christmas trees. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (Merry C–mas) 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Any further comments? Also please feel free to edit the template yourself. The coding is pretty easy to figure out. Remember 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it up a bunch more so take another look at it when you get a chance. Remember 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is up to a high quality now so I plan on adding it to the page unless I hear of any comments in the next couple of days. Remember 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I already added it prior to your comments here. I think it's good and ready for display. Nice job. Oh, and Merry Christmas. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (Merry C–mas) 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice template; great addition to the article! Doc Tropics 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on right

I've staggered the images (left-right-left-right) two or three times, but each time they've been moved to the right. Does someone like the images on the right? The No. 1 purpose of images is to break up the text, i.e. keep the graphical pattern from becoming too regular. That don't happen if all the images are in a column on the right.Kauffner 12:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been a lot of changes in the last few weeks, and I can't quite figure out when, why, or how the images got moved around. I may have reverted some of the moves myself when dealing with other edits. I agree that they can and probably should be staggered. - Eron Talk 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture on the right side of the page should bear a cross, and under it, say "Christianity". Like the the "Christian" page on Wikipedia. Or a picture of the nativity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.195.219 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a picture of the Nativity already. The image at the top has been chosen to reflect all aspects of the holiday - secular as well as christian. - Eron Talk 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

General "Clean-up"

The first paragraph states that it marks Jesus' birthdate but later dsiagrees saying it is merely to remember his birth. Seeing as the second is true it should be stated as this throughout —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.110.116 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. The first sentence reads "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday that marks the traditional birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth." A later sentence reads "December 25 as a birthdate for Jesus is merely traditional, and is not thought to be his actual date of birth." (emphasis added). I can't see any conflict or lack of clarity here. Regardless of what his actual birthdate was, Christmas is the "official" birthday of Jesus of Nazareth, and the article makes that clear. (See also Presidents' Day (United States) and Queen's Official Birthday for other examples of public figures whose births are marked on somewhat arbitrary dates.) - Eron Talk 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Solstice

I don't know if this has been raised before but, although December 25th was the winter solstice in 45 BC, by the third century (200AD), when Christmas may have been instituted, the inaccuracies in the calendar (gaining a day every 134 years) meant the Solstice fell on the 23rd December. This suggests the date of Christmas was not chosen to coincide with the solstice. Dmottram 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is noted in the article that the date of the actual solstice has changed. I don't see where it states that Christmas was chosen to coincide with the solstice; it states that Christmas may have been chosen to coincide with Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. That date - the birth of the Unconquered Sun - was picked to coincide with the solstice, and then moved away from the actual solstice due to calendrical drift. But is was that festival, and not the solstice itself, that is believed to have given us the date of Christmas. - Eron Talk 16:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It is noted that the solstice date has changed, but only refers to "modern times", not to the fact that it changed in ancient times as well. This means that by the time Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was instituted (3rd century), the 25th December was not the Winter Solstice - and Roman astronomers knew this. It would appear that Saturnalia was the solstice festival celebrated to end on the Solstice - which might explain its shortening as the solstice date changed.Dmottram 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
When the Julian calendar was first introduced, leap year was every three years. (They knew this was wrong astronomically. Perhaps it was done to prevent market day from falling on Jan. 1, which was considered unlucky.) So the correspondance between Dec. 25 and the astronomical solstice was messed up almost immediately. Augustus rejiggered the calendar so that the anniversity of Actium would fall in August, which he thought of as his month. Celebrating on the astronomically correct date obviously wasn't all that important to the Romans. Few writers even noticed the politicization of the calendar. They generally took for granted that Dec. 25 was the actual date of the solstice up until the Council of Nicene (325), when the date was recalculated. Kauffner 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are so many people harking on about winter solstice and calendars and things? What kind of rubbish is being taught in school science and geography lessons these days? This event has been recorded as far back as the ancient Egyptians as the virgin earth giving birth to the new sun, or in modern parlance the point at which the sun start to move north again on the noon meridian. It has nothing to do with the shortest day. You can use the Chinese or ancient Aztec calendars if you wish and it will still happen at the same (local sun) time. It was precisely because the old calendars were getting out of step with this (the solar year) that they were incrementally improved upon. Hope this clears up the confusion.--Aspro 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Black Friday

on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, ---> This is American specific. Shouldn't it read "In the US..." ... "American Thanksgiving", etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.94.83 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to Remove Saturnalia from Christmas (2006 AD)?

Clearly there are many differences between Saturnalia and Christmas and I think that the time has come to remove the link to Saturnalia. Christmas is one day, whereas Saturnalia is five or seven. Saturnalia ends on the 21st, whereas Christmas is on the 25th. Saturnalia was celebrated by pagans. Christmas is celebrated by Christians, although everyone enjoys a day-off. The god celebrated in Saturnalia was Saturn, the Son of God celebrated in Christmas is Jesus Christ. Saturnalia was in existence long before 1 AD and is no longer practiced. Christmas started in 1 AD and is still celebrated by over 2 billion people in 2006 AD. How does one go about removing irrelevant sections without being falsely accused of vandalism?Tiger5Claw5 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, I do agree that the connections between Saturnalia and Christmas are not adequately explained or "linked" in the Saturnalia section; the section just looks like an excerpt from Saturnalia. But I do, however, agree that mention of Saturnalia does have due weight mention in this article. It does seem apparent that links between Saturnalia and Christmas have been positively established. In conclusion however, I do think the whole pre-Christian section needs to be re-written. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Disagree: The information and link regarding Saturnalia is correct and proper here, as the main reason that Christmas is celebrated when it is was the influence of other winter festivals of the time, the largest in the Roman world being Saturnalia. Besides, NPOV practically demands that we mention other similar and closely linked festivals in this article. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This edit [1] is probably related to the claim of "falsely accused of vandalism" by Tiger5Claw5 ? . Not all was cleaned up so I have edited back in the original cited data and removed some of the uncited claims. BTW: In Italy today candles are still made for adults as gifts (I haven't added that in - it's just and observation). Ttiotsw 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Agree: There is no credible comparison between Saturnalia and Christmas. Does Saturnalia recognize the birth of a child, are there wise men with gifts, shepherds with staffs, angels with wings? Was Saturnalia the result of a Roman census? The section on Saturnalia does not belong in the history section. The section on Sol Invictus, however, is backed by credible citations and should be included in the history section, since Sol Invictus was replaced by Christmas when a Christian became emperor of Rome. However, the Sol Invictus section should come after the Nativity story, which is the basis of Christmas. The section on Yule should be included in the appropriate chronological order, since traditions were borrowed from Yule, after Rome conquered Northern Europe. This is not a point of view, 'Christ'mas does not exist without Jesus 'Christ'. BTW, Merry Christmas to any Christians out there and Happy Winter Festival to anyone else.Tiger5Claw5 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No tie between Winter Solstice celebrations and Christmas? So, tell me Tigerclaw, why is Christmas held in the winter despite the wide knowledge that he was born in the spring? Oh, and Blessed Yule to you, too! :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply: As mentioned, when Christmas became official in Rome, Christmas was meant to replace the Roman Holiday Sol Invictus. This was simply meant to indicate that Jesus Christ was now the official God of Rome. The fact that Sol Invictus may have been intended to replace the drunken revelry of Saturnalia is a secondary fact. However, Saturnalia changes dates, but Sol Invictus and Christmas do not. In a few hundred years, Saturnalia will be on the 19th or 20th. However, Christmas will still be on the 25th. Many festivals involve drunken revelry, but that hardly indicates any theological comparison. Unfortunately, my critique of the comparison of Saturnalia and Christmas, which sought to balance the pagan Point of View, was deleted. Perhaps some pagans found the arguments were too convincing to be allowed to be seen by their less pagan friends. The Holy fathers chose to replace Sol Invictus rather than some other Roman festival (i.e. the strawberry picking festival, the goat milking festival, etc.) to highlight the fact the Jesus Christ was greater than the Emperor as Sol was in the past. Since the actual birth date of Jesus Christ was not known, the Holy fathers choose to pick one with a political significance. Church and State were the same at time, you might recall.Tiger5Claw5 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply: it wasn't because of the pagan in us (I'm atheist - is that pagan ?) but that your critique didn't make any sense, that's why it was deleted. Rome hijacked and flip-flopped gods and festivals. Christians did this same trick too; nothing new here. I'm completely indifferent to the worship and idolisation of Jesus that Christians have but still go with just about everything of Christmas as, though the 25th is just one day, the Christmas eve masses (i.e. the 24th) are a big deal and the 26th (St Stephens day) or Boxing day is also important in many countries and then right through to the 6th January with the Ephiphany (which in some countries is when gifts are given) and then there is the 7th which is the Orthodox date. Just reading that and the history of Christmas tells me that your view is somewhat revisionist of the rich and bloody history of how Christianity has subsumed earlier cults with its own implementations. Ttiotsw 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Disagree Without Saturnalia, Christmas would probably be celebrated on another day, and no one would make a big fuss about it. If the Romans didn't have their holiday, we Christians wouldn't have one either. It's just the evolution of Ancient peer pressure. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 23:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree I don't believe Christmas evolved from Saturnalia. The theory is not defended by any historian who has looked at the issue. But many readers will be familar with it, so it needs to be mentioned. As explained in the "origin" section, the most likely explanation of the date of Christmas is that it is the date of Incarnation (March 25) plus nine months. Saturnalia was an Italian holiday held December 17-22. Christmas has always been most popular in northern Europe (persumably as a carry over from Yule).203.146.63.187 07:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Disagree Saturnalia's role as one of the root sources for the celebration we call Christmas has been very clearly established. The main source of this argument here seems to be the continuing tension between sacred (Christian) Christmas and secular Christmas. Church dogma is not history and in fact there was a "Christmas without Christ," if you will, it just wasn't called that. Christian influences are an essential component of most Western traditions, but they aren't the only component and Wikipedia should describe the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.The Cormac 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The reference given that is meant to talk about "Khristos-Mas" makes no reference to that phrase at all. I propose we remove that mention, since that reference does not apply, and, as was mentioned in a previous edit that deleted it, a google search of "Khristos-Mas" returns no results at all. So Lanernix's reversion should be reverted. Dan0 00 04:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have since reverted this for the above reasons. :bloodofox: 05:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand if people find this dubious, because it's new for them to hear about it. But for us, Copts, we sing all year long in the ancient Egyptian language, saying af-mas-f, which means he was born. I will quote the following from the reference I posted earlier [2]
The origin of the word Christmas:
"According to the recent researches, it is proved that the word "Christmas" is of an ancient Egyptian origin. Where this word is consisting of two parts: Christ & mas; Christ is the Lord, but what is mas? Mas is an ancient Egyptian word means: to be born or Birth. The word is drawn in the Hieroglyphic language -the ancient Egyptian language-as follows: The name of the ancient Egyptian king "Thothmas" means: the Birth of Thoth -god of wisdom. Therefore, mas means Birth. Hence, "Christmas" means the Birth of -Our Lord Jesus-Christ."
Personally, I believe this means something. If people who speak Egyptian agree that "mas" means "to be born", then the claim that the word Christmas is of Egyptian origin can have some credibility. It certainly sounds much more feasable than the current explanation that refers to "Christ's mass."
So the point is: I am by no means claiming that this is a fact. But if it sounds reasonable and some people believe in it, why not to refer to it as a possibility?
Thanks in advance, and looking forward to more fruitful discussions with you. --Lanternix 07:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree that an Egyptian origin sounds "more feasible" than the current "Christ's Mass" etymology. As detailed in the article, the current English etymology is supported by the existence of words in Middle English (Christemasse) and Old English (Cristes mæsse). All current authorities on English language etymology support this. I think the Egyptian connection is purely coincidental. - Eron Talk 14:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
See Ite_missa_est for another point of view concerning the "mass" part of Christmas. Bikerams 16:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Lanternix or his source obviously mixed up the origin of the English word "Christmas" and the origin of the holiday. The origin of the word is very much Germanic-Latin (compare Dutch: Kerstmis) - and the origin of the festival is very much Egyptian-Oriental. The pronounciation of the Coptic word "mas" and the English shape "mas" is incidentally, not etymological --Kipala 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of X for Christ has its orgins in early Christianity, not the mid 16th century. Constantine painted the Chi-Rho(XP) symbol on his soldier's shields before a battle in early 4th century. This shows that X stood for Christ long before the mid 16th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.229.20 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, all that shows is that Chi-Ro - in the Greek alphabet - was used as an abbreviation for Christ in the time of Constantine. But we don't abbreviate it XPmas. If there is a reference showing the use of X - preferably Roman X - prior to the 16th century, then please add it. Right now, the best reference we have says mid-16th. - Eron Talk 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yule

The section on Yule says that Yule logs were lit to honor Thor, yet the linked Yule log section makes no mention of Thor whatsoever, but says that Yule comes from Jule, another name for Odin. I was under the impression that Thor and Odin were separate gods, but if they are the same entity, both the Yule Log article and the yule section in the Christmas article should mention that. OTOH if they are separate gods, then the Yule Log article and the yule section in the Christmas article need to be brought into line one way or another. If Yule Logs were lit to honor Thor, then the Yule Log article ought to says so. If noone who actually knows what they are talking about wants to fix this, I will take a stab at it shortly. Panzerb0y 17:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

jesus birth

Christmas is the celebration of Jesus birth although Christ was born most likely in the spring. But it use to be pegan holiday and christians were trying to find the perfect day for celebrating Jesus' birth. This seemed like the perfect day and so it has turned out soMiapowell 02:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Miapowell

Avoiding 3RR

I have removed the following link 2x:

It has come back every time. I am more than willing to admit that I am in the wrong on this one. Either way, I am up against the 3RR. If other editors think it is appropriate for the article, leave it. If not ... Pastordavid 09:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The link points to non-notable content. It doesn't feel right for Wikipedia to link to it. I'm removing it. Ttiotsw 10:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work

I wanted to congratulate everyone for the excellent work that has been done on this article recently, I think we've made the article as closest to perfection as possible in the weeks and months leading to the Christmas holiday. With the co-operation of many of you, including Eron, MightyAtom, Kauffner, Doc Tropics, and many more, we've managed to increase both the NPOV and presentation of the article in time for Christmas.

And on this Christmas Eve, I want to extend a Merry Christmas to you all, and the greatest in the New Year. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting those people, eg in Australia and New Zealand, who are celebrating the 25th right now. Isnt globalism amazing, surely the true spirit of Christmas is thus! I think my own edits today have helped give the article more of an international flavour, SqueakBox 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And I personally extend my thanks for your contributions, SqueakBox. Hope you have a Merry Christmas. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a cite for the Stable bit in Nativity or need to reword this sentence,

The article has,

The birth took place in a "stable", surrounded by farm animals, and the infant Jesus was laid in a manger.

Which version of the Bible mentions "stable"  ?. The few I checked up only say that there was no room at the inn. To me it is WP:OR to include the word stable (double quotes or not) unless a notable source can be found that interprets being outside of the inn as being in a stable. Traditionally nativity scenes have some form of a stable but the Wikipedia text for Nativity_scene says "in a barn (or cave)" so we're internally inconsistent anyway. I vote we remove "stable" and replace it,

"The birth took place outside of the inn"

as that is stated in the bible passage which though it is a primary text we are stating a fact not an interpretation of events.

Same applies to Nativity_of_Jesus where it cites Luke 2:7 and yet says "Having found no place for themselves in the inn, they lodged in a stable or cave where animals used to be kept." that bit on the stable or cave is WP:OR though it states later in Nativity_of_Jesus#Location where this came about. Ttiotsw 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Tag

Do we really need the Current Event tag? That is for things like video games that have just been released, and, as a result, the article will be rapidly updated with new information. I don't foresee a semi-protected article that is about a holiday that has been celebrated for more than 1500 years being rapidly updated with new information. Do we really need this tag? -- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 07:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's for video games? I didn't know that, and there |I was using it for elections, deaths and various other events. Its Christmas aint it? The article clearly gets more updated at this time of year than any other, as it clearly changes (albeit slowly) only at this time of year. Not everyone may realise its Christymas so I consider it useful, SqueakBox 07:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag reads, "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." You said, "The article clearly gets more updated at this time of year than any other, as it clearly changes (albeit slowly) only at this time of year." (Emphasis mine on both.) If the info changes slowly, then the tag doesn't apply. Also, the date of the holiday is in the article, and seeing as time is kept on this Wikipedia in the conventional English way, the tag isn't needed to help people realize that it is currently Christmas. -- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 16:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It sayus events may change rapidly not that they will, so slow change isnt prohibited nor indeed no change at all. You cant deny its a current event, while a skillful use of the tag would allow people to know its stillChristmas somewhere, eg in the case of the Australasians who have already woken up on Boxing Day, SqueakBox 18:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

20th C and After

It quotes that there is no evidence to suggest that there was a football (grrr, not SOCCER) match between the British and German troops after the temporary truce. However, there have been many articles in the British press in the run-up to Christmas quoting a German soldier's diary. (SORRY, no link, i'm afraid). To sum it up, it suggests that the game was between SCOTTISH and german troops, and that the "Fritz beat the Tommies to the score of three to two" 82.31.33.178 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The story of the football match is widespread, but so far no one has been able to provide a verifiable reference so without one, we can't say that is it a true story. - Eron Talk 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We would love a reference for that section if you can find one! That would be great! MightyAtom 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although i have yet to find the German source, the following link appears to show a British source. Hope this helps! I'll continue to search for the German one. http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/30880.html 82.31.33.178 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Mithra was not a Sun God

The inclusion of Mithras in the section "Natalis Solis Invicti" is wrong. Mithraism was a competing religion to Christianity, indeed the leading competitor in the 3rd century. Mithra's birth was celebrated on the date we currently use for Christmas and it has been suggested that Christian leaders chose the date for Jesus’ birth to blunt a competitive advantage of the Mithra proselytizers. Whether this is true of not, it is true that Mithra was no sun god and his inclusion in this section is sloppy.The Cormac 23:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note the references on those sections. If you have a reference that states differently, please bring it up for discussion! MightyAtom 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Britannica and several other sources I checked agree that Mithras was a sun god for the Greeks and Romans (identified with the Greek god Helios). For the Iranians, Mithras was a god of light rather than a sun god -- perhaps this is the source of the confusion.Kauffner 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Andersen

So far as the Little Match Girl is concerned, the story takes place on New Year's Eve, not Christmas Eve. So I think it may be a case of close, but no cigar as far as this albeit classic fairy tale's relevance is concerned.

If it is decided that it should stay, however, it is also worth mentioning that the girl is not looking in windows to see the celebrations, but rather she is seeing visions in the lit matches... hallucinations... sort of.

I'll just leave it as it is for now. Oh, and Merry Christmas all! --Sillywalker 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction -- objectivity issues

I have tried several times to make the introduction more objective. In its day-to-day use and meaning, the word "Christmas" denotes the entire Holiday Season, it does not refer primarily to that particular part of it related to Christianity. By this name people understand Christmas trees, good cheer, gift giving, crowded shopping malls, decorations, nativity scenes, special church services, Frosty the Snowman, Bing Crosby's "Let It snow," and reindeer. Historically, we also see a blending of two traditions one pre- and non-Christian, and the other Christian. I have suggested the introduction:

Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday characterized chiefly as a time for getting together with one's family (quality family time), spreading goodwill, feasting, and exchanging presents. Although many of the traditions of Christmas, e.g. the Christmas tree, go back to pre-Christian times, common knowledge nowadays holds that it marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Christmas combines the celebration of Jesus' birth with various other traditions and customs, many of which were influenced by ancient winter festivals such as Yule[1] and Saturnalia. Christmas traditions include the display of Nativity scenes and Christmas trees, the exchange of gifts and cards, and the arrival of Father Christmas (Santa Claus) on Christmas Eve.

It's not perfect but it goes in the right direct from the intorduction that keeps getting posted, which is (today):

Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday that marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Christmas combines the celebration of Jesus' birth with various other traditions and customs, many of which were influenced by ancient winter festivals such as Yule[1] and Saturnalia. Christmas traditions include the display of Nativity scenes and Christmas trees, the exchange of gifts and cards, and the arrival of Father Christmas (Santa Claus) on Christmas Eve. Popular Christmas themes include the promotion of goodwill, giving, compassion, and quality family time.

I adjure other contributors to Wikipedia, also concerned with objectivity, to help with this cause, since it seems that the only way to correct this is with polite persistence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomAnt (talk • contribs)

  • After much deliberation as to what the introduction need say (see archive 3), many of the main editors of this article agreed upon the current introduction. This holiday was created by the Roman Catholic church as a means of recognizing or celebrating the birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth and it still is today. Jews don't celebrate Christmas, Hindus don't celebrate Christmas. This is because it is a holiday honoring the chiefly Christian-related Jesus and they choose not to do so. As stated clearly in the third opening paragraph, Christmas has gained popularity due to the spread of Christianity and the major influences of Western culture, but this doesn't mean we have the right to rewrite its definition to our liking. You are correct in saying that due to the aforementioned influences, some non-Christians (or even Christians) may choose to celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas only, but that does not define the holiday. When you say we need to present the holiday's definition objectively, you're absolutely correct, and the current version does so accurately. Christmas cannot be defined as "a day for being with family and getting presents", as that is a POV and biased view of the holiday. The accurate definition of the "Christmas" holiday is an honoring of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of other secular properties. Why do you think the US media often avoids mentioning "Christmas" in favor of generic terms like "holiday" or "the season"? So as not to not pick the Christian holiday over all the other holidays, like Jewish Hanukkah. Might I also add that "honoring" Jesus' birth doesn't require that you are Christian or believe he is/was Christ. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Sue, The lengthy deliberation you refer to may have been informed more by other considerations than the goal of objectivity. Your statements here would seem to bear that out. For example, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. do not celebrate Christmas simply because those religions arose in other places of the world than Europe, where the midwinter celebrations date way back, far before Christianity. In the beginning the tradition of Christmas -- by any name, e.g., yuletide -- involved the symbols and rituals we still know of today, such as the Christmas tree, the lights, mistletoe, feasting, etc., most of which have no explanation in Christianity. Plenty of people go right through the season, put up a tree, buy the gifts, get into the Christmas spirit, watch the movies about reindeer, Santa and his elves, and never think twice about the nativity -- which is also part of it, but in terms of meaning it is a latecomer to this tradition and has still not even assumed the importance in people's minds generally as would be implied by the opening statement in the current introduction. Even many Christian pastors agree on this latter point: they often deplore in their sermons that the celebration of Christmas in our culture has little to do with Christ.

Look objectively at Christmas -- the date, the traditions, the way it is currently observed, and its roots in Europe stretching far back to pre-Christian times and you will not begin this article with "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday that marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth." As a statement of faith, something in the terms of “prescriptive discourse” (i.e., the statement of a “good Christian soldier” that may earn someone a jewel in his/her heavenly crown someday), it may seem very meritorious to certain people, especially Christians. But in terms of the aim of this page, which is meant to be part of a secular encyclopedia, it is not ideal in terms of balance and objectivity. Indeed, the very fact that there was lengthy discussion (archive 3) is enough to demonstrate this. I adjure you, and all other interested parties, to come up with something better. AtomAnt 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)AtomAnt

I don't know how you made this mistake, but my name is CrazyInSane, not "Sue". Anyway, try to consider that Christmas is similar to "St. Patrick's Day". The celebrations associated with that particular holiday do not necessariliy have anything to do with Saint Patrick, however the holiday is in place to honor St. Patrick, while the celebrants participate in various (non-related) activities. The celebrations of St. Patrick's Day need not relate to St. Patrick, but the fact remains that this holiday is in honor of him—the title of the holiday is, indeed, St. Patrick's Day. The St. Patrick's Day article itself states that "non-Christians celebrate with secular aspects such as dressing in green...", thus the exact same could be said for Christmas. The very title of the holiday, deriving from "Christ's Mass" explicitly refers to Jesus, and this should not be avoided. Though influencing holidays such as Yule and Saturnalia are not Christianity-related, the creation of the specific "Christmas Day" holiday (a separate holiday from Yule and Saturnalia) was originally designated to mark the birthdate of Jesus.
The point of the St. Patrick's Day comparison is to show that to honor someone's birthday or life you don't need to relate all celebrations to that particular person, you can do other things to celebrate (i.e.- Christmas trees, family togetherness, world peace, etc.). We are not to place explicit origins of all these separate customs in the opening sentences (though the current opening does mention Saturnalia and Yule), we are to objectively describe what this holiday consists of and to whom it applies. First and foremost, it marks the birthdate of Jesus, and this should be mentioned at the very beginning, as it is now. Stating this later on can be seen as POV-pushing, since we are not to decide whether the aspects of Christmas are more important than the the honoree of the holiday (Jesus)—it is the celebrant who decides this. The opening has gone through extensive scrutiny and the current opening seems to be as NPOV as possible, for reasons I have explained. I (we) appreciate your concerns about this, and if other users do agree with you, then changes would be appropriate. For now, however, the current version should remain. By the way, I am not a Christian, I am a supporter of NPOV.— `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear CrazyInSane,

As long as you support NPOV and agree that if “other users” agree that something should be done, then I am sure that a solution can be found here. In my earlier post, just above, I have stated clearly some reasons why the opening sentence does not objectively characterize the holiday, but perhaps we need to go into this in more depth. By the way, you may have noticed that actually there are already “other users” about here, and indeed there is a wedge issue at play, which other users have alluded to (see the post just below this one, for example). Why did the Roman Catholic church choose this date for the celebration of Christmas? The only biblical evidence for the date of Christ’s birth is that the sheep were in the fields, and this makes it more probably the northern hemisphere’s spring/summer. Isn’t it curious that they chose a date that was already being celebrated for other reasons? Conjectures exist for the church’s motives here, but whatever their reason, we do know that as the Church held over the centuries that this was all about Christ’s birth, many people began to see the date this way. But this church dogma does not explain the symbol of the Christmas tree, or the lasting love that people have for the tree – tell me, in the evolution of the holiday, which would do you think is apt to fall away first, the nativity scene or the tree? Also, since the midwinter celebrations predate Christianity, it raises some bells to say that it is all about Christ’s birthday. A non-Western person reading the article might actually think that the holiday has a lot to do with the Christian religion – but what, besides an occasional nativity scene and reinforced church services, does Christianity have to do with this celebration, or this celebration have to do with Christianity? So you see, the problem is that an encyclopedia user is seeking secular truth, not religious dogma, and any objective appraisal will see very early on that this holiday is historically and culturally about much more than Christ’s birth -- which may not even be primary. So, for balance, the first sentence should reflect that. My own first sentence is not perhaps the ideal, but I encourage all of you to take the balanced NPOV position and move in this direction. I am not making this up. For an NPOV -- secular historical/cultural -- characterization of Christmas, see, for example: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=1290 201.1.2.163 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)AtomAnt

I think you are making the mistake of confusing the winter holiday season, including many different holidays that take place or have taken place at various times or in various cultures, with one specific holiday that falls in it, Christmas. This article clearly acknowledges the many secular aspects of modern Christmas. It also clearly acknowledges the pre-Christian antecedents of the holiday, such as Saturnalia, and the related non-Christian aspects, such as Yule. But the holiday itself, the festival that bears the name "Christmas" - that includes the title of the Christian messiah in its name - cannot be separated from its Christian origins. Yes, obviously the date was chosen for reasons that had nothing to do with the actual date of the birth of Jesus - and that is acknowledged. Yes, various traditions of modern Christmas, like the Christmas tree, are of pagan origin - and that is acknowledged.
There seems to be a real tug-of-war over this article. You would like to downplay the Christian aspects. Earlier this week, we had edits from another user who was trying to downplay the non-Christian aspects. I think that is perhaps a sign that we have struck a fairly good balance. - Eron Talk 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree fully with Eron. AtomAnt, it is clearly stated in the introduction that Christmas combines Jesus' birth with other completely secular aspects, of which many were influenced by completely unrelated pre-Christian festivals such as Yule and Saturnalia. What more can you ask for? The vast non-Christian origins and connections are clearly acknowledged right away, and this is done as neutrally as possible by stating that these aspects were "combined" or "merged" with the placing and celebration of the birth of Jesus, and that celebrants may choose to celebrate whichever aspects they want (Christian, non-Christian, or both). To state that the holiday is "chiefly for family togetherness, etc." is purely your POV and does not at all reflect the views of the entire body of 3,000,000,000+ human beings that celebrate the holiday in the way they choose. To assert that the holiday celebrates both Jesus' birth and other non-Christian aspects is as neutral as we can be—and since the Catholic Church both created and designated this particular holiday (Christmas Day) as marking the birth of Jesus, that will have merit over all other aspects/celebrations. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


The Catholic church did not choose or create Christmas..THEY WERE FORCED TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THE NUMEROUS LAWS WHICH THE CHRISTIAN EMPERORS PASSED AGAINST THE CELEBRATION OF THE BIRTHDAY OF THE SUN GOD PROVED TO BE INEFFECTUAL. The Christian Emperors had forced everyone in the empire to become Christians but they only succeeded in getting an artificial conversion as many continued to hold their Pagan beliefs and traditions. The following statement is a blatant lie: "It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth." The reason why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth is because the Christians had no choice. Emperor after Emperor tried to squash the old Pagan beliefs with numerous laws which failed to convert the majority of the population until people were threatened with death for not converting to Christianity. No amount of threats, however, could make the people give up their traditions and holidays.. and so the Christians were forced to accept the traditions and celebration associated with the day of the Sun God (December 25) and convert it into Jesus' birthday. This is clearly proved by all the evidence. The constant attempt by biased Christians trying to obscure this fact is ridiculous.24.6.22.213 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide verifiable references in support of this, we'd love to see them. But drop the personal attacks. Insulting people who disagree with you does nothing to help your cause. - Eron Talk 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear CrazyInSane,

Everybody knows what "Christmas" refers to, and it is not something created by the Roman Catholic Church. It refers to the manner in which our culture celebrates December 25; this includes the Christmas tree -- especially the Christmas tree -- and all the traditions dating back into prehistory. I shan't waste any more effort refuting your patently specious arguments, because what we basically have here is you setting yourself up as an irrational dictator of this page to push an inherently erroneous message, for whatever reason. Very unfortunate. AtomAnt

Sextus Julius Africanus Distortion

The chronological work of Sextus Julius Africanus is no longer extant and only survives in fragments. These fragments are mainly either quotations or paraphases from later writers such as Eusebius and Jerome. The meaning of the quote from Julius Africanus has been completely distorted on this page. Africanus asserts that since the creation of the world took place in March 25, he believed that Jesus was conceived (and not born, as was commonly believed in his day) on March 25. He says absolutely nothing about December 25. Africanus was simply attempting to draw a parallel between the creation of the world with the incarantion of Jesus. Joseph F. Kelly, The Origins of Christmas. Liturgical Press (1994): Pages 60-61; Susan K. Roll Toward the Origins of Christmas. Pharos: The Netherlands(1995): Pages 79-80.Zonaras 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The passage of Julius Africanus, which has been erroneously quoted, can be read in Greek (with Latin Translation) at: http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC14121218&id=BysMAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&dq=africanus+routh Pages 297 to 306. The above passage has also been translated into English at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/0060050.htm The section being referenced is entitled "On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour's Passion and His Life-Giving Resurrection" Notice how no mention is made of December 25.Zonaras 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting article written by Bruce M. Metzger has shown how this erroneous idea about what Julius Africanus wrote occurred. He asserts that a scholar named Lagarde, commenting on the text, stated that Africanus may have held this opinion that the birthday of Jesus was held on December 25 and argued that he probably wrote it, q.v. Bruce M. Metzger, "Chronologia Christi seu discordantium fontium concordantia ad juris normam by Damianus Lazzarato" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 73, No. 3 (Sep., 1954), pp. 174-176. Obviously, the "expert" at the Encyclopædia Britannica either did not know Greek or Latin or did not bother consulting the actual text of Julius Africanus and relied solely on a commentary of the text.Zonaras 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The first mention of Dec. 25 being celebrated as the birthday of Jesus is the anonymous Latin Chronographer of A.D. 354, It runs thus in English: "Year 1 after Christ, in the consulate of Caesar and Paulus, the Lord Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, a Friday and 15th day of the new moon." Note that no festal celebration of the day is attested. Also note that this occurs after the Christianity has become the state religion under Constantine and after the persecution of Paganism had begun under Constantine's sons.Zonaras 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


The quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica concerning Julius Africanus is completely false and should be removed. It just goes to show how shoddy that work has become. The 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica gave the following historically accurate (and unbiased) account of Christmas:
The earliest identification of the 25th of December with the birthday of Christ is in a passage, otherwise unknown and probably spurious, of Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 171-183), preserved in Latin by the Magdeburg centuriators (i. 3, 118), to the effect that the Gauls contended that as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on the 25th of December, whatever day of the week it might be, so they ought to celebrate the Pascha on the 25th of March when the resurrection befell.
The next mention of the 25th of December is in Hippolytus' (c. 202) commentary on Daniel iv. 23. Jesus, he says, was born at Bethlehem on the 25th of December, a Wednesday, in the fortysecond year of Augustus. This passage also is almost certainly interpolated. In any case he mentions no feast, nor was such a feast congruous with the orthodox ideas of that age. As late as 245 Origen, in his eighth homily on Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ "as if he were a king Pharaoh." The first certain mention of Dec. 25 is in a Latin chronographer of A.D. 354, first published entire by Mommsen.' It runs thus in English: "Year 1 after Christ, in the consulate of Caesar and Paulus, the Lord Jesus Christ was born on the 25th of December, a Friday and 15th day of the new moon." Here again no festal celebration of the day is attested.
There were, however, many speculations in the 2nd century about the date of Christ's birth. Clement of Alexandria, towards its close, mentions several such, and condemns them as superstitions. Some chronologists, he says, alleged the birth to have occurred in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the 25th of Pachon, the Egyptian month, i.e. the 20th of May. These were probably the Basilidian gnostics. Others set it on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi, i.e. the 19th or 20th of April. Clement himself sets it on the 17th of November, 3 B.C. The author of a Latin tract, called the De Pascha computus, written in Africa in 243, sets it by private revelation, ab ipso deo inspirati, on the 28th of March. He argues that the world was created perfect, flowers in bloom, and trees in leaf, therefore in spring; also at the equinox, and when the moon just created was full. Now the moon and sun were created on a Wednesday. The 28th of March suits all these considerations. Christ, therefore, being the Sun of Righteousness, was born on the 28th of March. The same symbolical reasoning led Polycarp 2 (before 160) to set his birth on Sunday, when the world's creation began, but his baptism on Wednesday, for it was the analogue of the sun's creation. On such grounds certain Latins as early as 354 may have transferred the human birthday from the 6th of January to the 25th of December, which was then a Mithraic feast and is by the chronographer above referred to, but in another part of his compilation, termed Natalis invicti solis, or birthday of the unconquered Sun. Cyprian (de orat. dom. 35) calls Christ Sol verus, Ambrose Sol novas noster (Sermo vii. 13), and such rhetoric was widespread. The Syrians and Armenians, who clung to the 6th of January, accused the Romans of sun-worship and idolatry, contending with great probability that the feast of the 25th of December had been invented by disciples of Cerinthus and its lections by Artemon to commemorate the natural birth of Jesus. Chrysostom also testifies the 25th of December to have been from the beginning known in the West, from Thrace even as far as Gades. Ambrose, On Virgins, iii. ch. 1, writing to his sister, implies that as late as the papacy of Liberius 352-356, the Birth from the Virgin was feasted together with the Marriage of Cana and the Banquet of the 4000 (Luke ix. 13), which were never feasted on any other day but Jan. 6.
Chrysostom, in a sermon preached at Antioch on Dec. 20, 386 or 388, says that some held the feast of Dec. 25 to have been held in the West, from Thrace as far as Cadiz, from the beginning. It certainly originated in the West, but spread quickly eastwards. In 353-361 it was observed at the court of Constantius. Basil of Caesarea (died 379) adopted it. Honorius, emperor (395-423) in the West, informed his mother and brother Arcadius (395-408) in Byzantium of how the new feast was kept in Rome, separate from the 6th of January, with its own troparia and sticharia. They adopted it, and recommended it to Chrysostom, who had long been in favour of it. Epiphanius of Crete was won over to it, as were also the other three patriarchs, Theophilus of Alexandria, John of Jerusalem, Flavian of Antioch. This was under Pope Anastasius, 398-400. John or Wahan of Nice, in a letter printed by Combefisinhis Historiamonothelitarum, affords the above details. The new feast was communicated by Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople (434-446), to Sahak, Catholicos of Armenia, about 440. The letter was betrayed to the Persian king, who accused Sahak of Greek intrigues, and deposed him. However, the Armenians, at least those within the Byzantine pale, adopted it for about thirty years, but finally abandoned it together with the decrees of Chalcedon early in the 8th century. Many writers of the period 375-450, e.g. Epiphanius, Cassian, Asterius, Basil, Chrysostom and Jerome, contrast the new feast with that of the Baptism as that of the birth after the flesh, from which we infer that the latter was generally regarded as a birth according to the Spirit. Instructive as showing that the new feast travelled from West eastwards is the fact (noticed by Usener) that in 387 the new feast was reckoned according to the Julian calendar by writers of the province of Asia, who in referring to other feasts use the reckoning of their local calendars. As early as 400 in Rome an imperial rescript includes Christmas among the three feasts (the others are Easter and Epiphany) on which theatres must be closed. Epiphany and Christmas were not made judicial non dies until 534.
For some years in the West (as late as 353 in Rome) the birth feast was appended to the baptismal feast on the 6th of January, and in Jerusalem it altogether supplanted it from about 360 to 440, when Bishop Juvenal introduced the feast of the 25th of December. The new feast was about the same time (440) finally established in Alexandria. The quadragesima of Epiphany (i.e. the feast of the presentation in the Temple, or hupapante) continued to be celebrated in Jerusalem on the 14th of February, forty days after the 6th of January, until the reign of Justinian. In most other places it had long before been put back to the 2nd of February to suit the new Christmas. Armenian historians describe the riots, and display of armed force, without which Justinian was not able in Jerusalem to transfer this feast from the 14th to the 2nd of February. Zonaras 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
December 25 being nine months after March 25, the Lagarde/Britannica hypothesis is a reasonable one, although unproven. The point that we don't have a quote from Africanus giving the December 25 date is well taken.
I think the quote from the 1911 edition of Britannica is dated in some respects. For example, it questions whether Christmas was really celebrated in 354. But even Roll, your own source, admits the festival was already established in Rome by 336. IMO, Thomas Talley (Origins of the Liturgical Year, 1991) represents the most up to date scholarship on this issue. His theory is that Christmas originated in North Africa toward the end of the third century. The idea that Epiphany is older than Christmas is also questionable. Epiphany originated in Egypt where the climate is exceptionally dry, so naturally more documentation concerning its origin has survived.
On the issue of March 25 as the birthdate of Jesus: Did anyone actually the celebrate the nativity on March 25? I think it is just one of a list of days mentioned by early Christian writers. There is no need to give them all. The purpose of the "origins" section is to explain how celebration on Dec. 25 came about, not to figure out when Jesus was really born. Kauffner 06:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Your attempts to obscure the facts are ridiculous. I have a copy of the Justinian Code in my hands right now and I can cite you law after law in which the Christian Emperors forbade again and again the traditional Pagan festivals (such as the celebration of the birth of the Sun god on December 25) to be performed. The constant repetitions of these laws show how ineffectual were the attempts by the government to stop these traditional holidays (and at least one of the laws I read actually admits that fact). The Christians were forced to accept the traditional Pagan holiday of the Sun God because of this and had to be content with changing it into the birthday of Jesus. That is an historical fact.
You have the audacity to cite a work written by a Reverend who teaches at a Seminary and then declare it to be "most up to date scholarship." Give me a break. Please cite credible unbiased sources that are based on scholarly research and not religious propaganda. An encyclopedia is based on facts not on "beliefs." Disco79 09:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


I have also found numerous laws forbidding Christians to participate in Pagan festivities. The laws are constantly repeated because Christians refuse to heed them. The traditional festivities of the Pagan holidays enamored both Pagans who had been forced to convert and a large number of Christians and neither of them wanted to give them up. The Christian emperors eventually had to accept the right of the people to participate in the traditional festivities as long as no sacrifices of Pagan religious ceremonies to the Pagan Gods were performed in the festivities. Disco79 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


I have finally finished collecting all the pertinent information. Please read the article Persecution of Roman religion for all the details and references.Disco79 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, the baseless and repeated accusations of vandalism against me and now the threat to block me are both unacceptable behavior. Second, the onus should not be on me to come up with a source acceptable to you. You do not provided a source for your claims at all, unless you're expecting readers to hunt through all 17 volumes of Justinian's code. Otherwise, your claims are supported only by your ability to state them with disturbing determination.Kauffner 15:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Did you read my statement above? Perhaps you are not fluent in English. Let me restate again that the references to the laws cited above have been placed in the article Persecution of Roman religion. Click on that article and go to the reference section for all the pertinent laws. There is too much information to be posted on this talk page.
By the way the Justinian code is in four volumes. If you had bothered to check you would have realized that the English translation by S.P. Scott is of the entire Corpus Juris Civilis, of which the Theodosian Code is just one part. Maybe you don't realize that the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Theodosian Code are not even the same thing. You don't however even need the volumes as the entire contents are now online at: http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps.htm
Please stop playing games with me by continually going off topic and playing dumb. Your agenda is pretty clear and your attempts to make this a religious article based on "beliefs" instead of an encyclopedic one based on facts are not welcome.Disco79 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. I'm not sure what I think about any of the changes yet; however, the tone of this discussion is getting a bit argumentative. Can we all assume some good faith for a bit? A number of the frequent contributors to this article have been off celebrating the holiday itself; maybe we can slow down the edits and reversions for a couple of days and give a few of us a chance to review this discussion and the recent changes and perhaps try to find some middle ground. - Eron Talk 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the issue: The theory that the date of Christmas was determined by adding nine months to the traditional date of the Incarnation (March 25), a theory favored by the current edition of Britannica and by other modern scholarship, has been entirely deleted. In its place, there is now unsourced material claiming as an undisputed fact that Christians created Christmas as a way of persecuting pagans. Kauffner 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
A complete English translation of all the fragments of Africanus (who was quoted in Encyclopedia Britannica) have been placed online: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/0060050.htm You will find that Africanus never states anything about adding nine months to the date of the traditional Incarnation. The editor of the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica was in error. This has clearly been shown by Bruce M. Metzger. He has shown how this erroneous idea about what Julius Africanus wrote occurred. He asserts that a scholar named Lagarde, commenting on the text, stated that Africanus may have held this opinion that the birthday of Jesus was held on December 25 and argued that he probably wrote it, q.v. Bruce M. Metzger, "Chronologia Christi seu discordantium fontium concordantia ad juris normam by Damianus Lazzarato" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 73, No. 3 (Sep., 1954), pp. 174-176. Obviously, the "expert" at the Encyclopædia Britannica either did not know Greek or Latin or did not bother consulting the actual text of Julius Africanus and relied solely on a commentary of the text. Earlier editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica did not make this error. Please cite your other sources of "modern scholarship."Disco79 11:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed I've provided numerous quotations and citations (not only from Pagan authors) but also from Christian authors, who themselves admit that the celebration of Christmas derived from the Pagan festival of the birthday of the Sun. I haven't seen any citations or quotations from you except those coming from the Bible (which is not an historical source). Disco79 11:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Britannica is shoddy. Thomas Talley wrote the classic work on this subject, but he doesn't count because he is Christian. I get the picture. I checked the Joseph F. Kelly book cited above by Zonaras. (Appearently a sockpuppet of Disco79, at least judging from this latest post.) Kelly has been completely misrepresented here. He agrees with the theory that Africanus derived the December 25 date from the date of Incarnation. Kauffner 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Do you understand the English language? I really doubt that you do. Please re-read Pages 60-61 of Joseph F. Kelly's book. Nowhere does he assert that Africanus ever mentioned the date of December 25. I quote: "Sextus Africanus, also believed that March 25 literally was the day of creation and also the date of the Incarnation, when the Son of God took on a fleshly body to redeem the world." Page 60. Then he goes on to state that this would be exactly nine months from "the day the Church would eventually choose for Christmas" (Page 60) and goes on to say that "in the fourth century a variety of other factors pushed Christians to accept December 25 as the date of Christ's birth." (Page 61) Try taking some English classes. Please. Disco79 13:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yule is not a solstice holiday

I know the claim that Yule is a winter solstice holiday is widespead and many references can be given to support it. But it makes no sense. The date of Yule was determined by a lunar calendar, so in general none of days of Yule would correspond to the date of the solstice. It is likely that the first day of Yule was the day that the crescent of first new moon of the year became visible. Bede gives the date of Yule as Dec. 25. This is persumably the date Yule was assigned when it was transferred to the Julian calendar. See this page. I actually have to disagree with my own source on one point. The page argues that Bede assigned Yule to Dec. 25 because he thought this was the date of the solstice. But in 325, the Council of Nicene recalculated the solstice date as Dec. 21. Bede made up the Easter Tables, so he must have known this. Perhaps Yule was put on Dec. 25 in order to Christianize the festival. It seems wildly improbable that the traditional date of the festival would just happen to be on the exact same date as Christmas. Kauffner 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are some good points, but also original research. Publish a paper on the topic somewhere so we can use it as a source for the article! :) MightyAtom 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

I've come up with a couple of ideas to improve the article:

1. The opening sections should be in the Christmas spirit, either religious or secular. For a long time, the article opened with a nativity section. I thought this was appropriate, but I welcome alternative suggestions. Now it's it material about paganism, Saturnalia, public nudity, and gambling. Although I wrote much of this stuff myself, I don't believe it should get such prominent play. I bring this issue up now because I noticed a few days ago that someone had created a link for the phrase "public nudity," highlighting these words in a way that I felt was un-Christmasy (if such a coinage is permited).
2. The Biblical nativity narrative has been reduced to three short sentances, perhaps because of a misconception concerning length limitations. This is heart of the holiday. Compare this to the coverage of paganism or economics. The nativity section should include both an expanded narrative and an explanation of holiday's religious significance, e.g. Luke 2:10-11.Kauffner 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This was changed mainly due to the fact that the Nativity already had a complete article, and didn't need duplication here. It was a group decision, and I think a good one. There is a link, so people interested in exploring more about the Nativity itself can do so. The same was done with the Santa Claus section, which was drastically shortened to remove redundant information. MightyAtom 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You can say the same thing about Saturnalia or Yule. They have their own articles, so the material here should be redundant. Redundancy is very common on Wikipedia since the cost it creates is minimal compared what it is for printed material. An article should include the information a reader is likely to be looking for.
As I recall, the reason for the edit was to get the article under 32kB. However, it is my understanding is that this article is not subject to the 32kB restriction. Kauffner 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point! It is exactly the same for Saturnalia and Yule! Just like the Nativity, they are just small introductory paragraphs with links to the main articles. There is no need for full expositions on any of those topics on the main Christmas article. Also, if a reader is searching for information on any of these topics, they will most likely search the main articles. I highly doubt someone looking for information on the Nativity would go to the Christmas article. MightyAtom 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your description doesn't sound much like the actual article to me. The section on paganism is huge, especially Yule. Christmas, at least traditionally, is a celebration of the nativity. Many languages use the same word for Christmas as for the nativity. I doubt that Nativity of Jesus is a common search phrase. Other encyclopedias don't have an entry of this title. It's a place to off load the Christian aspects of Christmas, which is all well and good, insofar as there is too much material for one article. But "Christmas" is the obvious first place for readers to look. The nativity section was on top of the article for several years, so this choice represented consensus for a long time. Kauffner 06:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather new to wikipedia, and I'm not quite sure how to go about this, so I'll just post here and leave it up to the other people to get it right. One thing I noticed is that the article says that Christmas was created (at least partially, "In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations") but two articles I've read disagree with this. Here they are: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v and http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11351

Now I'm not sure if these are more viable sources than the ones already in place, but I think it's worth consideration. Hope I'm not doing this wrong. lekkin10:48, 25 August 2007

Reversion of some recent changes

I've reverted a number of the recent edits from User:Disco79. Most of these were made without prior discussion, and as can be seen from the talk page above, this editor did not seemed to be interested in working with other editors to achieve a consensus on the page content. The nature of these edits, along with recent events involving this editor (see his UserTalk page history), cause me some concern that the intent was to insert an anti-Christian POV into the article.

I think that at least some of the content this editor brought may be good additions to the page; however, it was getting a bit hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Most of the edits were to the "Origin of the Christian festival" section. I've reverted them, but I'm going to take a look and see if there is anything that should be restored. I'd ask other editors to take a look as well. - Eron Talk 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper plagarises

This article was plagarised by a newspaper. -- Zanimum 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It sounds like it's stuff that I wrote. Thanks for the tip. Kauffner 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I received the following letter of apology from the editor of the San Antonio Express-News:
Peter --
Perhaps, then, I should apologize to you. It is our policy to apologize to whomever we plagiarize. It hasn't happened before on my watch, so I sent a note to Wikipedia the other day explaining that, and asking to whom should I send the apology. I got back an e-mail that said:
Dear Richter Bob
Thank you for your e-mail
That wasn't much help, so if indeed it was your research regarding the birth date of Christ that was lifted, please accept my apology on behalf of the editors and other employees of the San Antonio Express-News to you and to the others at Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Bob Richter
Public Editor
P.S. The lines lifted from Wikipedia were:
It is unknown exactly why or when Dec. 25 became associated with Jesus' birth. The New Testament does not give a specific date....Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born Dec. 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in A.D. 221...This date is nine months after the traditional date of the Incarnation (March 25), now celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation....The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. Kauffner 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Those are some of my lines in there too! Yay us! MightyAtom 09:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can see around 20-30 articles has copied virtually verbatum the lines "Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born Dec. 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in A.D. 221" without bothering to check the facts.

Unfortunately, I like to check my facts - and something is extremely suspicious about this statement! (see below!) --Mike 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wise Men

Just wondering if we could have a little more detail on the evolution of the Wise Men from the Biblical to the later mythologies. The Main Article gives the traditional names for three wise men without indicating that these are not in the Biblical material. Matthew (who doesn't mention the manger or the shepherds) is the only writer to mention "Wise men from the East" who follow the star. It is clear from the narrative that Matthew intends the star to have first appeared to the wise men when Jesus was born, they then travel some distance (probably expected to be from Babylon)to visit King Herod in Jerusalem, who consults the local religious leaders. Then (finally) the wise men travel to Bethlehem to see the baby, who by now is at least several months old - Herod, in trying to destroy Jesus, is recorded as ordering the death of all children under two years - and that was after carefully enquiring as to when the star had appeared. Source: Matthew chapter 2. Much later traditions bring the wise men to a stable (it makes for a full nativity scene), number them as three (to match the gifts) and assign names to them. I leave it to others to provide the sources for these traditions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.14.163 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC).--MikeG-Scot 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

25th December

I wanted to know the earliest reference to Xmas being on 25th December. Mistakenly I assumed the reference to Sextus Julius Africanus was correct, but after a fruitless few hours finding numerous articles repeating this statement but nothing to prove it, I'm highly dubious of its truth.

I suspect the original article probably says something along the lines of...

1. Sextus Julius Africanus was the first Full Chronology of Christianity so must have mentioned christmas (although the remaining texts available of Sextus Julius Africanus don't mention it)

OR

2. Somewhere in Sextus Julius Africanus it possibly mentions gestation period and Easter (probably not a specific mention of Xmas else many other later commentators would have referred to it). Then someone has drawn made some arguement that Sextus Julius Africanus must have referred to Xmas.

It would help if I could read the original quote in Encylopedia Britannica - from little is said it doesn't seem to refer to its source either ....

The Catholic encyclopedia (which ought to know) provided considerable detail on Christmas, but does not make one mention Sextus Julius Africanus once.

Either someone has found an unknown source or are exaggerating the truth! --Mike 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't know that the Britannica quote is going to help you, but here it is: December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus' birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date. Africanus' original writing has been lost, so it is not possible to pin down exactly what he wrote. But several scholars who have looked at the issue have concluded that Africanus is the source of the Dec. 25 date. We do know that Africanus created a chronology in which the central event was the Incarnation of Jesus on March 25, 1 BC. For exhaustive detail, see the discussion under the heading, "Sextus Julius Africanus Distortion". I plan to find a better source than Britannica and update this section. But I don't follow why you aren't satisfied with a simple reference. My advise is to go to a library check the current (2002) version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. (The version on the Web is from 1908.) Kauffner 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
From my own point of view ..... Thankyou thankyou thankyou thankyou!!!
As for the Wikipedia entry, I don't think there is any evidence to support "Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai", indeed, I can quote several sources that suggest Christmas was not widespread in the Christian world as late as 300AD.
I think the strongest possible is: "although disputed, some scholars have proposed that it was Sextus Julius Africanus who popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his now lost writings in the Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221.
--Mike 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)--

History

I really think you should put the "Pre-Christian winter festivals" section into a winter festivals article. It's not really Christmas' history per se, it's more just the history of winter festivals. You could even merge list of winter festivals into it and it would create a decent sized article once you add in info about all the other festivals. Then you just have to put "blahblah is a winter festival" on each winter festival page (ie Christmas page, Hannukah page, Saturnalia page, etc.)--24.57.157.81 10:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a proposal to elimate the Saturnalia section earlier. You can see the outpouring of emotion against the idea under "Time to Remove Saturnalia from Christmas (2006 AD)?" above. Your proposal strikes me as a more radical version of the same idea, so I think it flies against a clear consensus. But I sympathize with your general point that there is too much prominence given to other holidays in the article. Maybe the section can be shortened or moved down. Kauffner 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice or I wouldn't have bothered. I know exactly what is going on. --24.57.157.81 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Christmas Origins story?

I did a story on the ancient origins of Christmas for the Discovery Channel back in December, and thought it might be an appropriate addition to the External Links section of this page. If anyone else agrees, here's the link:


Ancient Origins of Christmas

I'd do it myself, but the wikipedia guidelines suggested I post the link here and let someone else decide if it's a good fit. Thanks!

Discoverynewsvideo 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of Christmas?

For some reason, this article is missing the point of Christmas belief, namely the commemoration of Jesus Christ's arrival as the Son of God come in the flesh. The only mention of God is in reference to pagan sun gods, which is an important historical note but fails to address why this day is such a big deal. For conciseness, a simple link to the Trinity article would suffice to prevent a lot of theological elaboration and controversy. Also it would be valuable to mention briefly the place Christmas within the Christmas Season--noting the Octave (8 days from the 25th denoting the circumcision of Christ)and ending after Epiphany Sunday. As mentioned, the Orthodox Season begins with Christmas observed Jan. 7 and ends on Theophany Jan. 19th.

Swisswiss 14:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the article reads "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday that marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth." The main article on Jesus details who he was. Not everyone who celebrates Christmas believes that he was "the Son of God come in the flesh," and for them there are other reasons why the day is important. - Eron Talk 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Swisswiss is right, cleary this article represents a pagan POV and should be edited to represent the actual meaning of Christmas. By the way, Christmas means Christ's Mass, a celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday. This why it is only one day and not five or six like Saturnalia. I'll fix this problem right away. This also points out the fact that a group of people can hijack a term on Wikipedia and distort the true meaning, making Wikipedia useless.Tiger5Claw5 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Christmas as a name means Christ's mass. The festival itself is clearly older, and pagan, and has largely remained so despite the best efforts of the Church. This is history, not pagan POV.Fainites 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There were many ancient festivals in the fall and winter (i.e. Harvest Festival, Ritual Human Sacrifice Festival, etc.). Most cultures would have had their own festival before Christianization. However, that does not mean that that festival is related to the history of Christmas, which of course starts with the Nativity, the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated in a Mass, hence the term Christ's Mass, commonly known as Christmas. I know this is difficult for some pagans to comprehend, but that is the truth of Christmas. The Mayans probably had their own festival where they sacrificed humans to their Sun god on the winter solstice. However, that does not mean that that festival is the pre-cursor of Christmas any more than the Saturnalia, just because that happened to be around the same time. In fact Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus not his death. Mexicans probably have kept some traditions that pre-date Christianity (i.e. getting drunk) that have been rolled into the Christmas celebration. However that does make that part of Christmas any more than yule, which is not recognized by many people (i.e. Hawaiians). Clearly the placement of Saturnalia in the History of Christmas is pure Pagan POV and should be removed. After all, Saturnalia is five to seven days whereas Christmas is only one, since Christmas celebrates someone birthday (hint for the slow "Christ"mas). The days are also different. The celebration is also of different things. There is no doubt that the Holy Fathers wanted to eliminate Saturnalia and Sol Invictus by putting Christmas about the same time. However, Christmas is the opposite in some regards to Saturnalia. For instance, public nudity and gambling. For these and many more reasons that have been removed by vandals (maybe Goths?), I humbly submit pagans should end their war on Christmas, go get drunk and a few venereal diseases (another pagan ritual, related to nudity) and set up their own Saturnalia site, where they can play with themselves all night.Tiger5Claw5 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thee is not a shred of evidence that Jesus was born on the 25th december. The Church established it then for the purpose of taking over an existing festival, just as it did with Easter (how christian is that?) and Walpurgis Night, and indeed the siting of just about every religious building in Europe. All perfectly standard stuff when a newbie religion moves in and takes over. Why do Christians get so put out by this?Fainites 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Saturnalia started on Dec. 17 and always ended well before December 25. It was an Italian festival, whereas Christmas has always been most popular in Northern Europe, persumably as carry-over from Yule. You won't find historians who've researched the issue claiming that Christmas evolved from Saturnalia. Why is Christmas on Dec. 25? This was the date of the winter solstice, the date of the Sol Invictus Festival, and it is nine months after incarnation (March 25). But the Christmas-from-Saturnalia theory is such a common UL, it still needs to be mentioned, despite the fact that it is clearly incorrect. Kauffner 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifications about Jesus, Christian affiliation

I added the following "note" as a citation to my new changes about Christian connotations to the intro:

"Though the marking of the historically authenticated birth of Jesus can objectively be regarded as a secular event that is free of religious implications, the philisophy, teachings and life of Jesus are the very basis of Christianity, and Christmas is often cited as a Christian holiday for this reason. Christmas' applied connotations with Christianity are sometimes controversial, and many celebrate without even acknowledging Jesus, usually because of personal theological conflictions with Christianity."

I'd like some input on all this, please. Any improvements I can make should be mentioned. --Sarcha 45 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarcha 45! Thanks for contributing to this page! However, it is usually best to discuss major changes to the introduction on the talk page first, if you don't want them to be reverted. The editors working on this article are seeking to strike a balance between the christian and secular aspects of this holiday, and as you might suppose differences of opinion are strong. There is already a section discussing the Christmas controversy, and it probably isn't necessary to put it into the introduction. MightyAtom 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
...It's not in the introduction. It's a citation that directs to the bottom of the page. --Sarcha 45 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism

Someone decided to delete the whole article and replace it with one line of text, all-caps. Someone replace it and delete this user. Dog Man311 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted, user warned. -- Pastordavid 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Collage

Could someone maybe do a collage to reflect the diversity of Christmas? The current tree is very ethnocentric and less appropriate than a Nativity scene. Still, rather than start a revert war and also given that the Nativity section appears straight after the intro (as it should), a good compromise would be to have a collage featuring a nativity scene, Santa Claus, a Christmas tree and other non-Western cultural depictions of Christmas. Your thoughts? Brisvegas 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be a good addition to the article. I lack the skill to produce something like that myself, but I certainly wouldn't object to an aesthetically pleasing collage that does more to "...reflect the diversity of Christmas". While the article itself has plenty of detail on regional customs, etc, the images are definitly tend to be Eurocentric.
BTW - Thanks for moving the "Nativity" section back to the top after I replaced the "History" section; I missed that bit. Doc Tropics 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did the Nativity section get moved? It has always followed the history section, and I believe that is the appropriate place for it. MightyAtom 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There was much confusion due to some mass deletions, apparently while we all had our backs turned. I've always supported the original organisation, but the current format has a certain sense to it as well. The description of the Nativity really falls outside the scope of the History section, and there is no question that to Christians, this is the most significant point of the holiday. That being said, I don't actually have strong feelings either way. Whichever layout others agree to will be ok with me. BTW - I'm really (really, really) happy to see that you're still active here. Doc Tropics 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
@Doc: you're welcome, congrats on being a vigilant anti-vandal.
@MightyAtom: I moved it before history for two main reasons: (a) Nativity came before History when this article was last a featured article; (b) People should probably read why Christmas is being celebrated before they read how it came to be celebrated in its present form. I hope these reasons satisfy you. Of course we can discuss further if you wish. Brisvegas 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it the same way it was placed before, mainly for reasons of flow. There was the introduction, the history, then the various aspects of Christmas, like Nativity of Jesus, Santa Claus, Christmas Tree...as it is the flow seems a bit jaring and unlogical. Oh, and statments like "People should probably read why Christmas is being celebrated before they read how it came to be celebrated in its present form" come off as promoting a specific agenda, rather than attempting to put together a neutral article that treats all aspects of the celebration of Christmas as equally valid. But we have had this discussion before! ;)MightyAtom 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it sounded that I was promoting an agenda, then it was certainly not my intention. I was merely seeking to relate cause and effect in the article, which is a reasonably logical and natural progression. The root cause of Christmas was the celebration of a significant figure's birth, the effect was the evolution of a holiday that adopted several pre-Christian and secular practices. Furthermore, to put the nativity of Jesus beside later traditions such as Christmas trees and Santa is anachronistic; Jesus' birth occurred long before the modern practices of Santa and trees came into being. Brisvegas 09:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If by Christmas we mean the specific holiday celebrated on December 25 (as opposed to a generic winter holiday), then the earlier version of the article put too much emphasis on pre-Christian holidays. Without the nativity, there is no Christmas in this form. So the nativity needs to be something more than a little squib tucked somewhere in the middle in the article.
"Secular Christmas" is a recent innovation created to allow U.S. schools to celebrate a version of Christmas that does not include ACLU lawsuits. The idea should not be allowed to drive the organization of an article that goes through 2,000 years of Christmas history. Kauffner 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Christian vs. Pagan

The History section's first subhead was recently changed from "Pre-Christian Winter Festivals" to "Pagan Winter Festivals". While this change seems relatively minor, and I'm not necessarily strongly oppposed to it, I do have some reservations about the usage. My understanding is that the term "Pagan" is essentially a Christian term used to describe certain non-Christian belief systems. However, the original phrase "Pre-Christian" would seem to be an NPOV and technically accurate term. If this is true, then the preferred usage on WP would certainly be the original phrasing. I'll allow time for responses, but plan to change it back in the absence of any strong objections. Doc Tropics 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nativity

I have removed the following recently added text from the Nativity section:

Common Misconception speaks that the birth took place in a "stable", surrounded by farm animals, though this is in fact not refered to in the bible, only the Manger. Possible origins of the Stable theory bing that, as a manger is a feeding box for Animals, it would be obvious that it is in a stable, but this is not given in the Testament.
The Animals present were first introduced in the nativity model given by St Francis of Assisi in Italy, who was the Patron saint of Animals. Since then, it has been adopted as fact, though inaccurate.
  • "Possible origins of the stable theory," with no source, sounds like original research.
  • The claims regarding St. Francis are unreferenced.
  • Words like "common misconception" and "adopted as fact, though inaccurate" seem to violate neutral point of view.

I encourage the editor adding these to discuss them here and get some consensus before restoring them. - Eron Talk 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hallmark Holiday

Should Christmas be counted as a hallmark holiday, considering it has no actual christian roots, having been basically lifted from pagan beliefs, and the fact that it is little more than an excuse for commercialism in the modern age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. - Eron Talk 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Most christian holidays are like that. The church felt cultures could be redeemed, as well as individuals; so cultural practices were christened rather than expunged. 79.182.238.41 11:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Non cristian Celebration

You should talk about how non religions people celebrate Christmas, they have it just to be with family and stuff like that christmas is getting more and more not about jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterprice (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like St. Valentine's Day will always be the celebration and honoring of St. Valentine, regardless of what other secular festivities are included, Christmas (Christ's mass) will always be about the honoring and traditional birth of Jesus; unless someone changes the name. Doesn't matter a damn bit how anyone chooses to celebrate it 142.176.46.3 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
While an interesting opinion, I don't think it's valid. How Christmas is celebrated is a big part of what Christmas is, it has a place in an encyclopedia. Most of this article is about how Christmas is celebrated. IvoShandor 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also called yule or yule tide?

First, I thought yule tide was usually written as yuletide, i.e., without that space. Second, Yule is not Christmas (although that article is right that they are used interchangeably in many cases), so why do we say Christmas is also called Yule? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Civil War reference

In "The Reformation and the 1800s" section, what does this mean?

The numerous German immigrants and the homecomings following the American Civil War helped promote the holiday by bringing with them continental European traditions.

How exactly did the returning Civil War soldiers bring home continental European traditions? This sentence needs to be reworked for clarity. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure what the original author intended to say. SlackerMom 13:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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.