Talk:Christmas/Archive 7

Christmas Non-Observance Text/Graphic Conflict for Japan

In the celebration section text, it says "Notable countries in which Christmas is not a formal public holiday include China, (excepting Hong Kong and Macao), Japan..." However, in the graphic to the left, Japan is gray, signaling that Christianity is a public holiday. Does this indicate a difference between "public holiday" and "formal public holiday"? Or should Japan be "not a public holiday but given observance"? Am I missing something else? Thank you to the authors of this comprehensive article. Robigus (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Christmas may be observed in Japan in the same way as Hallowe'en, Saint Valentine's Day and the like are observed in various countries, but it is not a public holiday in Japan. Period. Esoglou (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Noel

This article is simply a wiktionary-like entry on the French name for Christmas. It should be merged here, if not deleted outright (transwikied to wiktionary, perhaps). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a redirect to Noel (disambiguation) works nicely. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes sense to redirect to dab page. Why have you tagged it as a page move after you had set it up for a redirect? It's not going to be moved anywhere so that template doesn't seem correct. --HighKing (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It was to have an administrator delete the Noel page so that Noel (disambiguation) could be moved to its place. It has now been done by an administrator, all is complete. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Non-Observance Text/Graphic Conflict for Japan

In the celebration section text, it says "Notable countries in which Christmas is not a formal public holiday include China, (excepting Hong Kong and Macao), Japan..." However, in the graphic to the left, Japan is gray, signaling that Christianity is a public holiday. Does this indicate a difference between "public holiday" and "formal public holiday"? Or should Japan be "not a public holiday but given observance"? Am I missing something else? Thank you to the authors of this comprehensive article. Robigus (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Christmas may be observed in Japan in the same way as Hallowe'en, Saint Valentine's Day and the like are observed in various countries, but it is not a public holiday in Japan. Period. Esoglou (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Noel

This article is simply a wiktionary-like entry on the French name for Christmas. It should be merged here, if not deleted outright (transwikied to wiktionary, perhaps). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a redirect to Noel (disambiguation) works nicely. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes sense to redirect to dab page. Why have you tagged it as a page move after you had set it up for a redirect? It's not going to be moved anywhere so that template doesn't seem correct. --HighKing (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It was to have an administrator delete the Noel page so that Noel (disambiguation) could be moved to its place. It has now been done by an administrator, all is complete. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an biased article for Christmas by the Christians

I wanted to read about the ACTUAL history of Christmas which as I recall was NOT a Christian holiday but a Pagan one. Can we get some more honesty in this article please? Eric Saunders March 8, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you "recall" incorrectly; Christmas is in no way a pagan holiday. You might be referring to the fact that it was (arguably) placed on December 25 to intentionally absorb pagan festivals that were already occurring at that time, but that doesn't make it a pagan holiday. Many of the modern customs of Christmas do have origins in certain varying pagan traditions, because those festivals were absorbed into Christmas as Christianization was implemented across Europe. That is all already covered in the article. If you have reputable sources that Christmas is a "pagan holiday", please put them forward. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well actually, I would say that "Christmas *was* in no way a pagan holiday". A significant part of the discussion that went on on this page until it was archived at the beginning of the year, was basically about the question of whether Christmas has become a pagan holiday. I totally agree that Christmas was originally a Christian holiday, deliberately linked to earlier pagan festivities, and that it has been so for centuries. However, even the Pope acknowledges nowadays that many people celebrate Christmas purely as a pagan holiday or he would not be complaining about it like he did in his Christmas speech. AlexFekken (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Xmas in infobox

Would it be OK to add Xmas to the nicknames section of the infobox? --HighKing (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "Xmas" is a shortened way of writing "Christmas", not a distinct a.k.a. name. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For some, it's an informal shortened name. I realize sometimes it is frowned upon, but that doesn't make it invalid as a nickname. For example, most dictionaries include the term and provide an explanation. --HighKing (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including it. It is as appropriate as any of the other entries in that list. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlike "Noel" and "Yule", "Xmas" is not another name for Christmas, but only a different way of writing the same word. "And" and "&" are the same word written differently. The same holds for other examples given in the Xmas article: "Xtianity" a variant representation of "Christianity"; "Xtina" and "Christina" the same word; even "xtal" representing "crystal" and "xant" "chrysanthemum". However, as long as the majority of editors are in favour of treating "Xmas" as a distinct name for Christmas, I will of course let Wikipedia go its own way. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that the origins of Xmas stem from representing the word "Christ" with an "X". But "only" a different way of writing the "same" word glosses over the fact that it also has a different pronunciation, and also has different uses (more commercial, and frowned upon a religious setting). --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, is the infobox the correct place to qualify various terms? Shall we add "Most Common" to "Christmas", and "Archaic, rarely used today" to "Yule", and "French derivative" to "Noel"?? --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, does anyone actually call it "Nativity"??? Why is that linked in that way? --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sticking to the point under discussion). There are those who, when they meet spellings such as "Xtianity" will say "Ekstianity", "Ekstina", "ekstal", "eksant", "Eksmas", while recognizing that the words are really "Christianity", "Christina", "crystal", "chrysanthemum", "Christmas". The source that in your view shows that "most" dictionaries include the term and provide an explanation does give "kris-muhs" as a pronunciation of "Xmas", indeed as the primary pronunciation. The other dictionary that you cite expressly says that the idea that people unaware of the Greek origin of the "X" in "Xmas" often have of "Xmas" as an informal shortening pronounced "eksmas" is mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. The teeny point I'm making (and apologies if I'm repeating) is that mistaken or not, the reality is that the "eksmas" pronunciation is also used by some, hence the pronunciation provided. The Xmas article provides an excellent summary.

The qualification after "Xmas" is unnecessary now that I've linked to the Xmas article. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates of celebration

There was never any issue of celebrating Christmas on May 28, April 18 or the other dates given. Some early writer suggested that Jesus was born on one of these dates. Christmas is by definition on December 25. If John Chrysostom said Jesus was born on some other date, why is that relevant? No modern scholar thinks that the date of Christmas has anything to do with the actual date Jesus was born on. Including this material just confuses the issue. Kauffner (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, and thus a section discussing the "Date of Celebration" should include relevant information in full. Although this feast is now celebrated by the Western Church on December 25, we must also include the dates of previous celebrations. In addition, Christmas is celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox Church on January 7. Stating that "For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born" makes it seem like these writers were incorrect; in actuality, the date was not an issue. It is also important to retain mention of the reason of the celebration for the modern Church. These things are all relevant to a section discussing the "Date of celebration." On the other hand, I think that the current section "In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a 'paganization' that debased the true church" is a tangential assertion that is irrelevant to the section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There was never any celebration on most of these dates. Chrysostom and the rest were just speculating about this issue. You can calculate the birth for whatever day of the year you want. Is every date "Christmas"? We have have a separate nativity article for this stuff. The theory that Christmas is derived from some pagan Roman holiday is an extremely common one. I don't think there is anything to this theory myself, but the article needs to explain why someone might think this. You think Jesus was actually born on Dec. 25? That doesn't even sound like modern times. You need to base your arguments on modern reliable sources. Kauffner (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think that Jesus was born on December 25. I do, however, think that an article on "Christmas" should discuss, in brief, the various dates chosen for the birth of Christ under a section titled "Date of celebration." I do find John Chrysostom's comment to be relevant, even if he was speculating, because as a Church Father, he was very influential in choosing the date. Although I would prefer to leave it in, as a compromise, I will not object if you remove the section which states "That shepherds watched the flocks by night in the fields in the winter time is supported by the phrase "frost by night" in Genesis 31:38-40. A special group known as the shepherds of Migdal Eder (Gen. 35:19-21, Micah 4:8) watched the flocks by night year round pastured for Temple Sacrifice near Bethlehem" if you still would like to trim the section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The section would still be taking Chrysostom's theory way too seriously. I note that The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to this theory as Chysostom's "unwarranted assumptions about Zachary." Chrysostom's sermon was delivered after Christmas was already an established feast. So it is a post facto justification, not a explanation of why the Dec. 25 date was selected. Kauffner (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a post factum justification for adopting for celebration also in Chrysostom's area the date of 25 December (as already established in the west) instead of 6 January. Esoglou (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I still feel the need to nitpick: Christmas was never on any date other than December 25. January 6 is Epiphany. The holiday already had this name in Chrysostom's time. Anyway, I think it is clear that the Zacharias material is getting undue emphasis. Kauffner (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing "In the earliest centuries of Christianity, no particular day of the year was associated with a celebration of the birth of Jesus." to "For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born." seems substantial to me. Why removing the fact that no particular day was associated with the celebration? Was it wrong? This was now done twice [1] [2] by the same user. HTML2011 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Dates of Celebration". There was a list of dates: "May 28, April 18 or 19, March 25, January 2 or 6, November 17 or 20." But these dates are not dates anyone ever celebrated on, except in the sense that Epiphany is Jan. 6, Annunciation March 25, and whatnot. The version I wrote was stable for a long time. Kauffner (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Kauffner, but I find that your change must simply be reverted. Beginning the section about the date of celebration with "For centuries Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born" leaves the reader with the impression that, until recently, Christian writers always accepted 25 December as the actual date. This statement of yours is clearly false, as the information that you deleted clearly indicates that the earliest Christian writers proposed, on the contrary, quite a variety of dates. And as well as being contradicted by sourced information that you deleted without explanation, your statement is unsourced: citing the fact that one 18th-century writer argued for the authenticity of the 25 December date is no proof that for centuries (which?) Christian writers (without exception?) accepted the 25 December date. Esoglou (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"When speculation began, Christians proposed many different dates: May 28, April 18 or 19, March 25, January 2, November 17 or 20. " This is a totally unsourced statement. No reference. Nothing. What is the point of a list of dates anyway? As for Jan. 6, in ancient times Epiphany was primarily about the baptism of Jesus -- it was not Christmas on another day. Kauffner (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Esoglou and User:HTML2011 here. By the way, the reference is located after the consequent sentence. It just needs to be appropriately formatted. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean Mercer`s? No, it doesn't give any of these dates. The problem seems to be....that I am causing offense by implying that scholarship has advanced since the Middle Ages? Susan Roll, the source I cited, has a couple of pages documenting the early historiography of this subject. Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope I have solved your puzzlement by using "ref name=" Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A common question readers have is, "Why is Christmas on December 25?" I created this section some years ago so that there would be a place in the article were the various views and theories on this subject could be summarized and this question answered concisely. But now the section has a lengthy first paragraph in IMO sidetracks the reader and presents a fringe view of the issue. Chrysostom's views may be significant historically, but no modern writer thinks they are at all plausible. There is no basis to say what day of the year Jesus was really born, and no mainstream reference will tell you anything else. Kauffner (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An important part of the answer to that common question is to make clear from the outset that Christians have not always celebrated Christmas on 25 December, that this date has been chosen from among several candidate dates, and indeed that there are still Christians who have not accepted the 25 December date and have preferred to maintain a date that was in earlier use for the celebration. Other more modern sources could be cited for Chrysostom's view, but citing Chryostom serves to indicate in what period the change to the 25 December date occurred in his area, and to indicate an argument that was in fact used at that time, whether valid or not does not really concern us at this point (I think it is baseless), in favour of making the change. All this is in full accord with your statement that "there is no basis to say on what day of the year Jesus was in fact born". Esoglou (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is by definition on December 25. January 6 is Epiphany. It was celebrated as Epiphany in Chryostom's time, and it is still celebrated as Epiphany in modern times. No, it is not older than Christmas. The earliest reference for it is dated 361. January 6 was the winter solstice on the Egyptian calendar. So when Rome placed Christmas on the Roman calendar solstice, Eastern Christians created a feast on a corresponding date according to their local calendar. Kauffner (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone would agree with your opening statement. I think the majority would agree instead with the statement, "Christmas is (by definition) an annual celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ celebrated generally on December 25 as a religious and cultural holiday by billions of people around the world". Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is "a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ", or so says Merriam Webster. I should point out that the Orthodox also celebrate on Dec. 25. They just calculate the date by a different calendar. We don't have define "Christmas" here. My point is just that Christmas is not the same as Epiphany, Annunciation, or any of the other extraneous dates given in this section. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Armenians celebrate Christmas on 6 January. They don't fit into the "general" practice of celebrating Christmas on (Gregorian or Julian) 25 December. Even ignoring its survival to this day among the Armenians, 6 January was the date of the celebration of the birth of Jesus generally in eastern Christianity, persisting long in Egypt and even to the mid-6th century in Jerusalem (see Hastings, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, vol. 1, Cyril Charles Martindale, "Christmas" in Catholic Encyclopedia). Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Armenian church celebrates Epiphany on January 6, just like every other Christian church. I'm sure you can find some source somewhere that says everyday is Christmas. Kauffner (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The cited source does say that "Armenians celebrate Christmas on 6 January", doesn't it? Esoglou (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In Rituale Armenorum, the rites book for the Armenian church, the section on the rites for January 6 is entitled, "Of the holy feast of the Epiphany of our Lord". The calendar for the Armenian church is given on pages 529-532. January 6 is given as "Epiphany of our Lord". There is no mention of Christmas. Kauffner (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No contradiction: "In the Armenian Church, we celebrate the birth and the Theophany" (emphasis added),[3] as was once done throughout the East (cf. sources cited above). 6 January (19 January if Julian 6 January is translated into Gregorian) is Armenian Christmas.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Many other reliable sources could be added for that statement. Now how about citing some reliable source that would back up your assertion that Armenians do not celebrate Christmas on 6/19 January or that would say they celebrate it on some other date, such as 25 December? Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, this feast was "Epiphany." "Armenian Christmas" is a modern idiom, like calling Hanukkah "Jewish Christmas." Idioms like "Christmas in August" or "Christmas every day" are common too, but they don't tell you anything about the actual date of Christmas. On the modern Armenian liturical calendar, January 6 is "Holy Nativity and Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ". This doesn't specify Christmas or Epiphany, but that's just a translation issue. I don't see any basis to say that the Armenian Church recognizes Christmas as January 6, or as any other date for that matter. Numerous references define Christmas as a feast held on December 25.[11][12] No matter how you define a word, there will somebody, somewhere who defines it differently. Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern idiom or not, Armenians do call 6 January Christmas. Thank you for presenting a source that confirms that even the Church calls 6 January "Holy Nativity (= Christmas) and Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ", celebrating in the same feast the birth and the baptism of Christ,[13][14] as the Latin Church celebrates in its Epiphany feast the visit of the Magi, the baptism of Christ and the wedding feast at Cana. Reliable sources explicitly state that the Armenian Apostolic Church "observes Christmas" on 6/19 January.[15][16][17][18][19] That is surely enough. Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should have known that Merriam Webster and Rituale Armenorum aren't in the same league as an illustrious recipe book like All About Christmas. This used to a nice article before it got rewritten by people who don't know the difference between Christmas and Epiphany, and, it seems, Annunciation and other holidays as well. Kauffner (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR: neither Merriam-Webster nor Conybeare's Rituale Armenorum denies that 6/19 January is the date on which the Armenian Apostolic Church or Armenians in general celebrate Christmas. Abundant sources say that 6/19 January is their Christmas. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions says the Armenians refused to abandon, as other eastern Christians did, having a festival on 6 January that commemorated both the birth and the baptism of Jesus,[20] with the result that, for the Armenian Church, as you know, 6 January is the "Holy Nativity and Theophany of our Lord Jesus Christ". Conybeare is in reality a positive witness to Armenian celebration of Christmas on 6 January: he writes of "two systems of calendar, one of which placed Christmas on December 25, the other on January 6 ... the Armenians oscillated from one Christmas date to the other" and in the early eighth century "returned to January 6 as the date of the birth-feast".[21] Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Christmas is not mentioned on the Armenian liturgical calendar, either the traditional or the modern version, should be more than enough right there. I shouldn't have to prove that something doesn't happen. But here are references for Armenian non-celebration of Christmas:

• "To this day, the Armenian church — still the major form of Christianity in Iran — observes Nativity on January sixth and does not observe Christmas at all." Journey of the Magi (2006)
• "The Armenians do not observe Christmas" Encyclopaedia of religion and ethics (1961)
• The Armenians "still do not observe Christmas as a separate feast". The Christian churches of the East (1961)

There are certainly many references to Epiphany as "Armenian Christmas", but not nearly as many as there are to Hanukkah as "Jewish Christmas".[22][23][24] This sort of loose usage is not evidence as to the literal date of the Christmas feast. Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May we agree that, if Christmas is understood as the annual Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus (understood thus by the vast majority of sources), the Armenian Church and people do observe it (on 6/19 January), but if Christmas is understood as 25 December (understood thus by the first two sources you cite, and by some others that you do not cite), the Armenian Church and people do not observe that date at all?

(Your third citation agrees with the many sources that say Armenians celebrate Christmas (birth of Jesus) in combination with Epiphany (baptism of Jesus), not as a separate feast, thus keeping to what was once the general practice in the east apart from Jerusalem, where 6 January was observed as a celebration of the birth alone.) Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Images in celebration section

The Nativity by Charles-François Poerson, 1667.

What does this image in the middle of the /intro/ of the celebration section tell the reader? HTML2011 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of celebration

On Christmas Day, the Christ Candle in the center of the Advent wreath is traditionally lit in many church services.

What does this image at the start of the section "Date of celebration" tell about the date??? There is Christmas decoration for such things. I move it there. HTML2011 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad Reference in"History" section?

I have accessed the online copy of the document referenced (reference #38) for the quotation which begins this section : "It is cosmic symbolism..." and I have been _unable to locate the quoted material_ anywhere in this document. Here is the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome+Sol,+the+sun+in+the+art+and+religions+of+Rome&ct=clnk

As this article appears to be locked against editing (why??), perhaps one of the Wikipedia powers-that-be would either: 1) Provide the correct source for the quote; or, if none can be found, 2) delete the bogus quote and replace it with something else.

I would also mention that it was anything but easy to locate this source. Given Wikipedia's recent widely publicized committment to /verifiability/, perhaps something quoted from a more available source -- perhaps something which could be obtained through the average public library -- would be more appropriate.

Thanks for looking into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. Yes, it really is in the book. There is now a link to the online version. I don't think it can be any easier to verify than that. Kauffner (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, the new link takes me to a very long, very slow-loading, very BLANK web page. I thought perhaps one needed a Scribd account to view the document, so I opened one, but although the page has the -title- shown in the link, is is still blank other than a few generic links at the top (e.g., to Twitter), and some advertising at the very bottom. No article; no text. Alleged "links" to download or print the article are inactive (clicking on them does nothing). Then I thought perhaps this might be a browser issue, so I retried using IE, FireFox and Opera. Same result -- nada.

I see that the ISBN links to a list of libraries having the printed document, so I'll try to find one of those eventually. But the "on-line" document doesn't seem to be available.

Curiouser and curiouser: I just searched for the ISBN using ten different online book search engines (all listed by Wiki), and according to all of them this book does not exist. Yet "OttoBib" produces bibliographic information for the source.

Mind mentioning where you actually -saw- this quote? Thanks.

I don't have any problem reading Scribd myself. Here is an HTML version of the book. It used to be a scanned Google Book, but was it was apparently removed at some point. Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete list of celebration day

Theres is missing a list o clebration day

As for my countries , Denmark is celebrat on the on 24 December,, i alsosheard som countries celbration on 6 of janury and diffrent dates. 85.83.42.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [25]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only difference for the reader is that the section "References and notes" is in a single column in the Piotrus form, while in the other form it is arranged in three columns. I fail to see any advantage in that change. What am I missing? Esoglou (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no advantage or disadvantage for the reader; the main advantage comes from the text becoming more friendly for editors, particularly the newbies who are most likely to be put off by code heavy full citations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a disadvantage in adding ~7,500 bytes to an article in a way that doesn't improve anything for the reader, not all readers are accessing pages from devices that can easily handle streams of data, and some devices are charged for the amount of data transferred. Not a huge disadvantage for most, but there is a disadvantage, whereas there is no advantage. Meanwhile, the editors also have a disadvantage with the LDR method, in that the references will always be in a different section, that's not simpler. - SudoGhost 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But in the current article, already the full text of some refs is in a different section. LDR moves them all to one place, no more guessing where they are - they are in an alphabetical list at the bottom of the article. Whether the size increase introduces any noticeable lag (I believe it is well under 1 second for loading) and whether this lag offsets the increased friendliness of editing for the newbies (who are most likely to be put off by the code in the text) is debatable; I believe that increased friendliness is more valuable than <1 sec load time on editing window. Is there an editor who is not going to edit because the editing window opened for 0.7 rather than 0.5 second? I don't think so. Are thee first time editors who will try to edit this, land in a code heavy section, and be scared off editing forever? I do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet you've not really shown how it creates "increased friendliness", that's your opinion. My opinion is that having the reference right next to the content is more "editor-friendly", since they don't have to open up two different sections or the entire article just to edit one thing, that's not friendly. - SudoGhost 21:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't said anything up till now because I don't think it's terribly important. Someday, when the wysiwyg interface gets rolled out, all this may be academic. In the meantime, I think the everyday, run-of-the-mill ref style is probably best because it's what most editors are used to, and doing it another way involves something of a learning curve. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Taks to do

In the box at the top of this talk page, it says "Here are some tasks you can do...". But many Wikipedia users are unable to do those tasks because it requires editing the Wikipedia page Christmas --RossSLynch (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The "to do" list was posted here on 28 October 2008. More than four years of work has gone into the article since then. I have now removed the list, which perhaps was actually attracting inappropriate edits and thus leading to the imposition of restrictions on editing the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2012

Nepal is celebrating Christmas as a national holiday since December 25, 2008. This is one of many new developments as the country became the Democratic Republic of Nepal in May 28, 2008 after the abolishment of the decades long monarchy system.

The Himalayas (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't see an appropriate place in this article to put that information. It might work better at Christmas worldwide or Culture of Nepal, although you'll need to add a reliable source to support it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am simply trying to remove the name of my home country "Nepal" under the Celebration heading as my home country Nepal is celebrating Christmas as a national public holiday since 2008. And, I also expect that you will remove the grey mark from the map of Nepal and limiting the map for 38 countries where Christmas is not a public holiday. Here is the only link that I found to validate my information. Christmas as public holiday by the government of Nepal since 2008 Please go for a second last line from the third paragraphs of above article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Himalayas (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I see. Thanks for clarifying. I have removed the mention of Nepal per your request. Since the creator and subsequent updaters of the image don't seem particularly active anymore, I left a request for the map change you requested at the Wikimedia Commons Graphic Lab's map workshop. You're also free to edit the map yourself; it's not protected like this article. (If you do, please let me know so I can cancel the request at Commons.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"One ancient source mentioned Dies Natalis Solis Invicti in the Chronography of 354". No it does not.

The actual text of the Chronography has only "N INVICTI". The rest is not there. Please correct. -- 78.50.188.146 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this inexactitude, which moreover - and more importantly in Wikipedia - was falsely attributed to the cited source. Esoglou (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Only two canonical Gospels mention the birth of Jesus

I fail to see the relevance to "the precise year of Jesus' birth, which some historians place between 7 and 2 BC" of the statement that "indeed his birth is mentioned in only two of the Canonical Gospels", a statement whose insertion into the article has been insisted on. Much more relevant would be the fact that the two canonical Gospels that do speak of the birth of Jesus place it in the time of King Herod the Great. Absence of mention in any writing whatever (e.g., those of Josephus) neither confirms nor denies the dating that historians base on the only sources that do give an indication of the date. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and according to WP:SYNTH, we are not even supposed to imply any point that isn't made explicit in sources, in relation to the article topic, in this case, Christmas. I trimmed the word 'only' from that sentence; per the example in WP:Synth it is implying something. But I think we can safely say 'his birth is mentioned in two of the four canonical Gospels'. We can't assume anything from absence, such as the idea that the other two Gospels are suggesting he was never born because they don't mention it. In no other case if a biography doesn't mention the person's birth, does it mean to suggest the person was not born. Let's put on our thinking caps. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The traditional date for the birth of Jesus, given by Tertullian and other church fathers, is 2 BC. This date is based on Luke's assertion that Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry. The modern calculations, which are based on an eclipse that occurred at the time of the death of Herod, wouldn't have influenced the evolution of Christmas. Kauffner (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

Change "Christmas" is a compound word originating in the term "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Cristemasse, which is from Old English Crīstesmæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038.[6] Crīst (genitive Crīstes) is from Greek Khrīstos (Χριστός), a translation of Hebrew Māšîaḥ (מָשִׁיחַ), "Messiah"; and mæsse is from Latin missa, the celebration of the Eucharist. TO "Christmas" is a compound word originating in the term "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Cristemasse, which is from Old English Crīstesmæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038.[6] Crīst (genitive Crīstes) is from Greek Khrīstos (Χριστός), a translation of Hebrew Māšîaḥ (מָשִׁיחַ), "Messiah"; and mæsse is from Latin missa, which means "sent". At the end of the latin mass the words "Ite, missa est"(go it is sent) are used and this is probably how the word became shorthand for the Eucharist. Bert52 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of that may be better suited to the Etymology section of Wiktionary:Christmas. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Date from solstice

The article repeatedly links Christmas day with the solstice as if they were one and the same. If fact the solstice occurs around the 21st (this year at 11:12 GMT). If you were attempting to determine this by primitive observation of the setting sun (such as probably at Stonehenge for example), you would not be certain that midwinter is past for a few days. After all, it is often cloudy in winter. As just one example, the second paragraph of the lead has: "The date of Christmas may have initially been chosen ... as the date of the southern solstice ...". Perhaps this ought to be "chosen ... as the earliest that the passing of the solstice could be confirmed ..."? Comments? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an easy one. The answer is, "We just go with what can be found in reliable sources - being very careful to avoid any extra theorizing not in these sources, per WP:SYNTH." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As Til Eulenspiegel says, we have to follow what is in the sources. 25 December does seem to be the date of celebration of the winter solstice in Rome, called bruma (from brevissima, which means "shortest"). I have inserted "celebration of" at the first mention of the supposed connection between celebrating the birth of Jesus and the solstice. The other mentions of the solstice should perhaps all remain exactly as they are, in view of what the sources say. Esoglou (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I was concerned about WP:V, and also WP:NOR though with Solstice they ought to be satisfied. Hence the request for a concensus. It is always a problem when WP:V leads to content that is demonstrably wrong, and yet a better source can't be found. I'll leave the issue to more experienced hands. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

When the Julian calendar was introduced in 45 BC, Sosigenes calculated the solstice as December 25. So Bruma was moved to this date. All through ancient and medieval times, December 25 was accepted as the solstice date, even by science writers like Pliny. Augustus manipulated the calendar for political reasons, and there was also calendar drift. So the astronomical solstice was always a few days earlier, even in ancient times. Kauffner (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading quotes from Hijman

In the section "Pre-Christian background : Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" there is a section enclosed in quotation marks: "while the winter solstice on or around December 25 was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas".[108] The reference given is Hijmans, http://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome p. 588.

First, since this is in quotes it should be so stated, for example, by prefacing the quote as "According to Hijmans..." This allows the reader to more clearly discern that this is a statement of Hijman's personal scholarship, not a consensus view of scholarship on ecclesiastical holidays. Since the citation for that assertion rests on a single South African scholar's thesis, it should be credited as a thesis, not a consensus. In fact Hijmans does go through a lot of evidence of the feast of the Sol Invictus. You might want to pay more attention to this quote from Hijmans (page 587--confusingly, that is page 581 of the scribd document): "From Usener (1905) to Heim (1999), all scholars who argue that Christmas was instituted to counteract the feast of December 25 in honour of Sol emphasize the strongly pagan nature of that feast and the great importance and popularity of the cult of Sol Invictus in late antiquity." So, here Hijman points out that multiple scholars state that the date of Christmas was instituted to counteract the Roman feast on December 25: his opinion is a contrary one.

The single truncated quote from Hijmans seems to be a bit misleading about what Hijmans wrote. On page 594 of the reference, he states "barring the scholiast to Bar Salibi, we find no indication that a feast day of Sol played any role in the choice of December 25." So it would be more properly stated "only one source suggests that a feast day of Sol played a role in the choice of December 25." On the following page, he states: "While they [the early Christians] were aware that pagans called this day the “birthday” of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas."

Again, this somewhat contradicts the text in the article-- here he says that Dec. 25 was not merely "the winter solstice" but was indeed the birthday of Sol Invictus, but the fact that it was the birthday of Sol Invictus was just coincidence, not the reason for the day chosen. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many theories of this kind, and the article can't do them all justice: Christmas came from Sol Invictus, Christmas came from Saturnalia, etc. The Romans had 180 holidays a year. That one was held on Dec. 25 is not of great significance. In ancient times, Christians did not believe in celebrating birthdays, so Christmas was a minor holiday. It gained prominence when it was combined with Yule in the Middle Ages. The most important Roman holiday was Kalends (January 1). Yet there is no Christian holiday on January 1. Kauffner (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

IP 128.156 was right to point out that Hijmans's view was presented too absolutely. I have therefore added a couple of sources that comment like him on the lack of evidence of the existence a religious festival of Sol on 25 December that preceded the adoption of that day by Christians for their religious celebration. Multiple scholars argue, as Hijmans says, that Christmas must have been instituted to counteract the Sol feast. Surely IP 128.156 can find one or more of them who must have said that there is evidence that the Sol feast did precede the Christ feast, and didn't merely suppose that the 25 December Christmas celebration sprang up suddenly just at the time of the first extant record of it. We could then insert that information to balance the view that evidence is lacking to back up the supposition of those multiple scholars. As for the scholiast to Bar Salibi, he was, at the very earliest, of the 12th century, the time of the text on which he was commenting. So he was at least eight centuries after Christians began to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December, and was nearer to the time of the modern proponents of the theory that he mentions than he was to the time when the Christian adoption of 25 December (which may have been gradual even in Rome and clearly was elsewhere) took place. He is scarcely entitled to being called a "source" more than any of the 18th, 19th, 20th-century writers who popularized that view. Hijmans does take it, as IP 128.156 remarks, that 25 December was adopted because of the solstice celebration rather than on account of a religious Sol festival on the same day. Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, looking at the Hijmans' thesis, I see that the scholars he mentions by name as connecting Christmas with Natalis Solis Invicti are Usener (1905) and Heim (1999). I'll put these citations into the article. There are also some journal papers by Hijmans that might be a better cite than the book listed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification Needed in Article.

Sentence in Second Paragraph Now Reads: The precise year of Jesus' birth, which some historians place between 7 and 2 BC, is unknown.[15][16] His birth is mentioned in two of the four Canonical Gospels...

Proposed Clarification: The precise year of Jesus' birth, which some historians place between 7 and 2 BC, is unknown.[15][16] His birth is mentioned in two of the four Canonical Gospels OF THE BIBLE.

A link could also be added pointing to the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaches (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a link to canonical gospels is enough to enlighten anyone who doesn't know that the canonical gospels are part of the Bible. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The information is now a single mouse-click away, and the proposed revision sort of implies there are four other notable canonical gospels that might fit the context. Rivertorch (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New "List of" article

I'd like to see an index of all the traditions/customs in a sortable table to include rituals, characters, notable decorations, etc.; headings to include Name, Date of inception, Source (how the tradition started), Current status, etc. It could, perhaps, be subsectioned into rituals, decorations, people and characters, economy/commercial, etc.

I've found: List of Christmas carols, List of Christmas dishes, Christmas decorations and Christmas worldwide, (the latter coming the closest to what I'm looking for) but none of those provide a sortable list focusing on all the traditions. The carols and dishes would probably not be included in the proposed traditions/customs list except for those that are intimately linked to some specific ritual.

Is there already something like that on WP that I've missed? If not, I think it would be a nice addition to Wikipedia. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment about balance

This is a highly informative article about Christmas -- great information on many aspects. A somewhat minor concern I have is that there may be an overemphasis on the religious aspects of Christmas and not enough on the commercial aspects. The "Economy" section does cover it somewhat; I wonder if there might be more about Santa Claus, particularly the mythology surrounding it, the stories about the North Pole, chimneys, etc?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although not necessarily the focus on commercial aspect, but more on a secular celebration. The Christmas festival was originally a pagan celebration, briefly went through a top down enforced Christian phase (during which it got the name Christmas) and has become increasingly secular over the past 50 years to the point where barely anyone in the UK really considers the religious aspect whatsoever. Py0alb (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, Christmas was never pagan. Christmas is the celebration of Christ's birth. Pagans don't celebrate that. Saxophilist (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge#Later theories, it's from 3,000 BC and aligned on the midwinter solstice. Unless you are meaning the literal, precise and narrow meaning of "Christ's Mass", there appear to have been festivals at this time since "time immemorial". If you do restrict the interpretation, then the secular aspects of Christmas are not Christmas, and you need to rewrite the whole article accordingly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Saxophilist has a point. 25 December, the date chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas) is not the solstice, although it was the date on which in Rome the solstice used to be celebrated. Archaeastronomy, as Martin of Sheffield says, indicates an even earlier northern European interest in the winter solstice that may have been more accurate than the Roman. At any rate, there seems to be no evidence that the northern European solstice celebrations were on 25 December rather than 21 or 22 December. The related solstice customs later became connected with the 25 December Christmas and remained attached to it even when, before the Gregorian reform of the calendar, Christmas came two weeks later than the solstice (the Gregorian correction was of 10 days originally, 11 days by the time England adopted it), which shows what was the core matter to which extraneous things, both ancient customs and "secular aspects", became attached. They became attached to Christmas, not Christmas to them. Even if today many people (but by no means all) give little or no thought to the core of Christmas and concentrate on the "trimmings", these attached extraneous ancient customs and secular aspects are not Christmas. Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2012

70.39.187.67 (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - No request was made - see Wikipedia:Edit requests for guidance.Moxy (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dec. 25 mentions - what about Bishops Theophilus 174 AD, and HIPPOLYTUS in 204 AD?

I had added the following info to the article:

Bishops Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 175) and Hippolytus of Rome (204) are often cited among the earliest Christian references to December 25 being the Date of Christ's birth.

However, to my regret, recently this info got summarily tossed out without debate, without any examination or discussion of the facts, and was replaced by conflicting assertions.

In the interests of accuracy, you might not want to brush this off or refuse to address this information. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

ThomasPaine1776, thank you for adding Irenaeus' writing in ca. 180 AD, and as I said above, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch in 174 AD is often mentioned as well... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Celebration in Pakistan

December 25 is a public holiday in Pakistan, it is not officially designated as Christmas, but rather as the birthday of Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. --Sheraz Younas (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

7th January

Add next to Serbia states which are also with Serbian orthodox church Montenegro and Republika Srpska. Thanks109.121.30.69 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not objective or accurate

I appreciate the information in here but it does conflict widely with many known and respected authors with regards to the origins of Christmas itself. It is widely recognized that the origins are pagan in nature and that the eaarly Christians themselves never celebrated the birth of Jesus, for a number of reasons, one being that it has a connection with the celebration of the winter festival called the Saturnalia, which commenced on December 17th and lasted until the 24th. The details of the celebration of Christmas, such as the use of holly and decorated trees, ect, also hold origins in paganism. My feeling is that perhaps your own personal beliefs have played a role you conveying the information listed here on this site. In his book The Trouble With Christmas, author Tom Flynn set out conclusions reached after years spent researching Christmas: “An enormous number of traditions we now associate with Christmas have their roots in pre-Christian pagan religious traditions. Some of these have social, sexual, or cosmological connotations that might lead educated, culturally sensitive moderns to discard the traditions once they have understood their roots more clearly. After presenting a mass of supporting information, Flynn returns to the basic point: “One of the great ironies of Christmas is how little of its content is truly Christian. Once we dispose of the pre-Christian elements, most of what remains is post-Christian, rather than authentically Christian, in origin.”—Page 155. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.172.147 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The scholary evidence is in direct contradiction to the decidedly pro-Christian slant of this article. It really needs fixing. The only Christian thing about Christmas is the word "Christmas" itself. Py0alb (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the english language article after the german one. The german article seems do my simple eyes much more concise where history and origin of the holiday is concerned. In this english article it is i.e. not made clear, that there is no date of the birth of Jesus in the bible, that the history of the holiday predates its christian meaning even in rome, that the 25th was chosen for various reasons, not the least being that it was a pagan holiday of the sun in ancient rome. In this article the history starts as a christian holiday and it's described as if only it's customs were influenced by pagan holidays. Maybe someone who speaks better english than me could have a look at the german version, compare the two in terms of accuracy and improve the one that needs improving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.10.31.85 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

Celebration: Pakistan is also included in the countries where it is no public holiday 25 december for Christmas. Instead there is a holiday for Mr. Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan) birthday celebration. Please add Pakistan in the list. Sheraz Younas (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: if Pakistan doesn't have Christmas as a holiday, it doesn't need to be added to the list. - a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 18:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Churches that celebrate Jan 6.

In the article the Armenian Apostolic and the Armenian Catholic churches are mentioned as the ones celebrating Jan 6. This needs to be amended. The Armenian Catholic Church celebrates Dec 25, while the Armenian Evangelical Church celebrated Jan 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart-the-little (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to present a reliable source that says the Armenian Catholic Church celebrates Christmas on 25 December. This Catholic Armenian source speaks of "Armenian Christmas (January 6)", but it is certainly possible that, at least in some countries, Armenian Catholics celebrate Christmas on 25 December, as Latin Catholics celebrate Easter on the Julian date of Easter along with the majority of Christians in several countries, and in Ethiopia they celebrate Christmas too on the date on which it is celebrated in the calendar of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the civil calendar, which is in Gregorian-calendar January. Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-dinner cuisine

There are also Christmas cookies and other non-dinner foods. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, found List of Christmas dishes and added a link. -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

History ends in 1875?

Why does the history coverage in this article end in 1875? Did there use to be content there that was deleted? Rpundurs (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, User:Wassupwestcoast removed the last part of this section on 15 November 2007. In the months leading up to that it had been reduced piece by piece. -- Beland (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: just a list of the names of ...

69.171.176.4 posted this comment on 25 December 2011 (view all feedback).

just a list of the names of the different celebrations in US. American and African-American and Jewish. Spell check does not help. MS Word dictionary and other reference does not work. Just simply the list of names, thats all. Merry Christmas, Xmas Kwanza Hunnaka?

In response to this, I added to the intro:

In Western culture, it is part of the Christmas and holiday season, which can also include New Year's Day, New Year's Eve, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Yule, Epiphany, Kwanzaa, and winter solstice.

but User:Crumpled Fire reverted this to:

and is an integral part of the Christmas and holiday season.

with the edit summary:

(rv - too American-centric (two of those holidays are in America/Canada only), and irrelevant to this article... there is no mention of all those holidays in the intros of any of the other holidays mentioned)

This intro text is the same as the reader saw, and apparently it did not help them find what they were looking for. How should we resolve this? -- Beland (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We can't possibly incorporate every suggestion from every anon IP in the feedback section, especially when it's tangential and irrelevant to the article's subject. Perhaps adding mention the list of those other holidays at either Christmas and holiday season or Christmas worldwide#United_States would be a good idea, but I don't see how it's relevant to list a series of unrelated holidays associated with the American "holiday season" in the introductory paragraph of an article about the worldwide celebration of the holiday of Christmas. Perhaps we could address this comment instead:

incrediably bias! and when it touches on key facts about the pre-chirstian orgins of christmas it seems to dismiss them as unimportant key facts missing: christmas was banned by US congress until 1870 many agree that dec 25 is NOT jesus birthday dec 25 is the date for MANY pegan festivals NYPD was established to stop the drunkin rioting of christmas celebrators please excuse my spelling mistakes

We already have a reference to Jesus' birth date and the ban on Christmas in Colonial America, but this can be expanded and the latter can perhaps be given its own section in which we can elaborate on reasons and other examples. – Crumpled Fire (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(Re: the first request) Good advice, thanks for that! I have added some text to Christmas worldwide and a link to Christmas and holiday season in the infobox. Hopefully this will help people looking for this information find it more easily. As for the other request, well that's extremely interesting. There's a long list of requests I'm triaging and will try to help sort some of them out and I have a chance to read the article in more depth. -- Beland (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela, under the regime of Nicolás Maduro, has recently moved Christmas to November 1. See here for details. Is it worth mentioning somewhere in this article or some related article? Or should we dismiss it as plain nonsensical? Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 22 November 2013

Remove "massiah" as Christ as the massiah in Judiasm is not related to Christ.

Thanks!

94.174.88.61 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Judaism and Christianity disagree on whether Jesus is the Messiah, but Greek Christos and Hebrew Masiah both mean "annointed", so the article is correct on the etymology. I have added the translation to "annointed" and provided two citations. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Christmas colors - what about white?

The article states that the traditional Christmas colors are red, green, and gold. What about white? White seems to be very commonly associated with Christmas, if not moreso than gold. I understand that the cited source only mentions red, green, and gold, however, I think it is pretty common knowledge that white is one of the Christmas colors as well due to snow, and this is not exclusively in a liturgical sense. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this error. What is in question are the colours of Christmas decorations, not of Christmas itself. Esoglou (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

There is a spelling error in the reference to "De Pascha Computus" in the section "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti"; instead of "Pascha" it reads "Pasha", which is incorrect Titus Marcus Marcellus (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done: see [26]. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Theologians being touted as Historians

The second paragraph states "While the birth year of Jesus is estimated among modern historians to have been between 7 and 2 BC, the exact month and day of his birth are unknown." The three people cited to back this up are NOT historians - they are theologians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.90.248 (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Much as the definition of "scholar", since at least the time of Herodotus, has been "anyone who writes about scholastic areas of interest", likewise the definition of "historian" includes "scholars who write about history". Much as certain interests would like to establish a universal membership card system of approved "historians", this has not been successfully done to date. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, you don't have to be a modern historian yourself in order to report the general view of modern historians. If you disagree with the cited source, surprise us by citing any reliable source that says modern historians hold that the year was either later than 2 BC or earlier than 7 BC. You might like to read the discussion of the question in, for instance, this book. Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Validity of Map of Countries Where Christmas is Not Public Holiday

I would like to reference the map that shows which countries do not recognize Christmas as a public holiday, but how is it an acceptable source? According to the file page, the map was created by a Wikipedia user with the source simply being "Own work." References for this information do not exist elsewhere on the page. I feel as though this map should be removed or have an acceptable source added to it. 68.60.33.98 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If I understand your concern, the image itself is create but the data used to generate the map should be referenced. Is that correct? If that's the case, please make the request at the file itself:

. Click on the discussion link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate introduction?

The very first sentence in the article seems inaccurate to me. Many people do not celebrate it is a religious holiday and it originally wasn't even meant to commemorate christ, it was a pagan holiday about the winter solstice. There is a decent number of Christians who argue that this holiday is actually against their religion, because of consumerism and the pagan origins. The introduction doesn't seem accurate to me.

"Christmas (Old English: Crīstesmæsse, meaning "Christ's Mass") is an annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ[6][7] and a widely observed holiday, celebrated generally on December 25[3][4][5] by millions of people around the world."

Perhaps someone can improve upon the introduction? Sevrandy (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As I read it, the current wording doesn't imply that any of the things you say in the first paragraph of this thread aren't true. What alternative wording would you suggest? Rivertorch (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually they are to separate holidays Pagans celebrate the winter solstice and Christians celebrate Christmas. Christmas is not necessarily the birth of Christ just when the pope declared it to be. StudiesWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a Christian Holiday

It is listed on the Wikipedia page that this "type" is christian and it isn't IT'S PAGAN. December 25 is a pagan holiday worshiping the sun. The Christians stole the holiday because it was so widely used by Pagans, so they said that December 25 was Jesus's birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufphen (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree to the above statement as the article showed that the origin of Christmas date was debatable and whether it preceded the pagan feast. The fact that some early Christians associated the Annunciation as March 25th is very large evidence that Christmas was 9 months later on December 25th. This was even before it became popular throughout the Christian Churches. (Catholic Priest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRCHEFFERNAN (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article mentions many times its pagan origins, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it became, and is still considered, a Christian holiday. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas is a Christian holiday. The winter solstice is a Pagan holiday. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The celebration of Christmas on the 24th of December

I would like it to be added that in Sweden and Denmark (for example) Christmas is celebrated on the 24th, Christmas Eve. I believe that I asked for its inclusion last year, and it was added then. It must have been removed afterwards though. 2.71.229.57 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Secular Christmas Expansion

I feel the article needs to incorporate much more emphasis on secular christmas; santa clause, black friday, Christmas trees, vacation time, etc. The article has a large bias towards religious focus on christmas, when it should be just a portion or history of christmas. It is easily arguable that secular christmas has more references in pop culture (ex santa and christmas tree are in commercials a more represented in tv and movie compared to jesus). cooljuno411 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Our articles have to have a global outlook but you just defined Christmas in the intro as a holiday falling on December 25 which seems like a pov from a bias since in many countries it is totally different from in your country and even on a different day. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's easily arguable that in the past 75 years, Christmas has taken on a more secular nature, but as an encyclopedia we can't ignore the previous fifteen centuries in favour of the modern celebration. That's WP:RECENT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you carried your non-capitalization of "Christian" and "non-Christian" into the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To point out the obvious (again, after the removal of earlier discussions like this [edit: and similar remarks above]): Christmas means different things to different people, so why not agree (and make it more explicit) that there are multiple definitions of "Christmas". So perhaps use the disambiguation page to split the "annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ" from the "widely observed cultural holiday"? AlexFekken (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Links / WikiProjects

Are all the external links in the History section to BibleGateway needed? (Also, what does this article have to do with America?) George8211 // Give a trout a home! 15:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

Please change "An anonymous work known known as De Pascha Computus" to "An anonymous work known as De Pascha Computus". The word known was used twice in a row. CyHack (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a misspelled word on the section, Etymology. "Messiah", meaning "annointed". annointed should be spelled as anointed. CyHack (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a misspelled word on the sentence, "This also started the cultural conflict between the holiday's spiritual significance and its asssociated commercialism that some see as corrupting the holiday." The word asssociated should be spelled as associated. CyHack (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a misspelled word on the sentence, "Taking an aze to an oak tree dedicated to Norse god Thor, Boniface chopped the tree down and dared Thor to zap him for it." The word aze should be spelled as axe. CyHack (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014

Christmas is celebrated on the 24th in Sweden, Denmark and other countries. Could this be added to the infobox?2.108.49.192 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to support this statement please. Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Christmas Eve is celebrated on December 24. Christmas is still celebrated on December 25. We should discuss that here though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a "Christmas Eve around the world" section, and the articles isn't protected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's on the article named Jul (Sweden). While you give gifts etc. on the 25th, our main celebration is on the 24th. 2.108.49.192 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume. I give gifts on Christmas Eve as well. The article I linked to explains it as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not assuming. I can tell you as a Swede (With a Danish father, and therefore Danish family) that we celebrate on the 24th. The 24th is when our main celebration is. We barely do anything on the 25th. The first link I provided says the same thing.2.108.49.192 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

http://sweden.se/traditions/christmas/ is a source. 2.108.49.192 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a few things:

1. You did assume when you wrote, "you give gifts etc. on the 25th". If you had written that "the article says ..." that would not have been an assumption.
2. This isn't an article on the Swedish version of the Wikipedia article but on the English one. The majority of those in the English world celebrate Christmas on December 25.
3. This isn't about when to exchange gifts, it's about the celebration of Christmas in general. In the English world, December 24 has a different name, and there's an article for that and there's an article related to what you're talking about.

If you have a concrete change that you'd like to make, suggest it, otherwise, this general complaint is misplaced and won't get you anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just hang on a mo there Walter Görlitz. 2.108.49.192 has a very good point! Everybody these days (now we have clocks) unquestionably accept that the new day start at midnight GMT/UTC. Even Greenwich Mean Time once started the new day at noon. Anyone and everyone that has studied history knows these festival traditions date back, long back before the invention of the mechanical clock. Like, the Sabbath, the new day started the moment the sun goes down. So, on our modern calendar and clock time, the 25th started back then, on what we now consider still to be the 24th. Too many editors seem to be applying their 'modern' orthodox religious beliefs rather than than the true origin of the significance of the 25th. Thereby trying to massage this article to conform their legends and myths. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia. For a naïve reader (who I remind you, we are writing for) they need the basics, spelt out, in terms they understand, in order to gain an sound understanding. Swedish/English versions of Wikipedia doesn't come into it, because a common foundation leads to understanding. Division allows for confusion to creep in. So this article 'Christmas' still needs a lot of work. And as 2.108.49.192 has brought up, it is important therefore to point out why the the Scandinavians start celebrating on the 24th. My calendar tells me that this year is 2014, lets stop editing as though we are still living back in the time of Martin Luther when we could have been burnt at the stake for telling things as they really are. Come on -lets knock this article into shape.--Aspro (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the anon isn't making a good point, but it's not a constructive one. You aren't making either type of point since this is discussed in the Christmas Eve article, which you clearly have not read. We are not writing for naïve readers, that's what the simple English version of Wikipedia is for. If you too have a concrete change that you'd like to make, suggest it, otherwise, this general complaint is misplaced and won't get you anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The article already mentions that several areas celebrate Christmas on January 6th, 7th and 16th. Why is it wrong to assume that it should equally be mentioned the the 24th is the day that Sweden, Denmark and Norway (Probably more) celebrate on the 24th? Especially when the article is faulty in saying that all western churches celebrate on the 25th? 2.108.49.192 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scandinavian and Germanic nations do not celebrate Christmas on December 24, they celebrate Christmas Eve. I'm sure you understand that there is noting faulty here other than confusing the two distinct terms because they share a common word. There is no Western church that celebrates Christmas on December 24 and a reliable source would be need to confirm your statement that they do in Scandinavia. When I was in Norway in December 1991, it was clear that the service I attended on December 24 was Julnatt, not Jul.

And further to my earlier comments, if you'd like to change some content in the article, feel free to suggest what you would like to see changed using exact wording. Vague suggestions don't work well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Then that's only in Norway. This article SPECIFICALLY mentions that Christmas is on the 25th. The Swedish and the Danish DO NOT celebrate Christmas proper on the 25th. There's a reason for why there is an article named Christmas Day and Christmas Eve. Neither of them have anything to do when the main celebration of Christmas occurs. We do not celebrate Christmas Eve on the 24th, we celebrate Christmas proper. 2.108.49.192 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a quick read of the source that the anon posted. It clearly states that Christmas Eve was the high point of the celibrations and in the "origins" box refers to the church service on Christmas day, linking it to the birth of Jesus. All of this reinforces that Christmas ("Christ's Mass") is the 25th (whenever that starts) in Sweden as elsewhere. If the Swedes start their celebrations early that is fine, the high point of the secular celebration does not define the day of Christmas. In contrast in the UK people in times past people kept Christmas day fairly religiously, but then gave presents ("Christmas boxes") on Boxing day. That didn't mean that Christmas was on the 26th, merely that the 26th was the high point of the secular celebrations. Consider also New Year: the high point is the eve, the day itself is often quiet. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're confusing Christmas Eve with Christmas Day again. Swedes celebrate Christmas Eve on December 24. It's called sv:Julafton which is distinct from sv:Juldagen. Do you read Swedish? Read those articles. The opening sentence for Julafton reads, "Julafton infaller den 24 december, det vill säga dagen före juldagen den 25 december" and for those who can't read Swedish it says "Christmas Eve falls on December 24, that is, the day before Christmas Day on December 25". Clearly Julafton is a larger article than Juldagen because of the importance placed on the day, but the distinction between the two days is clear, even to Swedes.

I understand that you're writing from Denmark where they only have one article, da:Jul, with two separate headings, one each for Juleaften and Juledag.

So if you'd like us to change our article, you'll have to support your opinion with some reliable sources.

If you'd like us to expand the discussion of some aspect I'd like to draw your attention to what we currently have:

Infobox: "Related to Christmastide, Christmas Eve,"

Middle Ages: "the date of giving gifts changed from December 6 to Christmas Eve"

Gift-bearing figures: "and the date of giving gifts changed from December 6 to Christmas Eve."

(emphasis above is mine) If you'd like to add a section somewhere explaining that gift giving and other celebrations are traditionally done on Christmas Eve in many nations, I'm sure you could use the references from those two sections above or possibly add another. If you want a section in the lede that states similar, feel free to suggest it. However don't confuse Christmas Day with Christmas Eve because there is a clear difference between the two, even in Scandinavia. And there is a link at the top to Christmas worldwide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And the official Swedish site does make a clear distinction between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about date

I was looking to see what Wikipedia had to say about why Chrismas is celebrated on December 25, and saw nothing. Somehow I ended up seeing the information in the lead, but that doesn't count. As I recall, the lead is only intended to summarize what the article says.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've noticed this in the past but didn't want to get drawn into a long-drawn-out-debated about astronomy vis religion and the solace festivals. The sun on the 25th advances on the noon meridian. The ancients could thus use simple posts to indicate the start of the new year (a new son is born of a virgin mother ). Every four years they (the ancients) would have witnesses that the year was out by one day and so add a day. After 28 years the sun would then be a little behind. Yet, wait 5 years instead of four and then add a leap day. You then have the stable 33 year cycle. This method does not need a Century leap year to be taken into account. However, the Gregorian calendar notation was a lot easier to write down in Roman numerals – so it has persisted into the modern day. The celebration of the birth of the profit prophet Jesus was not transferred to this date of the 25th until long, long after his death.--Aspro (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen any of this stuff in any sources about "The ancients could thus use simple posts to indicate the start of the new year (a new son is born of a virgin mother)." Which "the ancients"? Please do not just make stuff up. Many careful studies have been done about recorded beliefs in virgin mother births and it was much more rarely referred to than you would wish to suggest to be an annual event. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a good reason why you've never heard of this stuff, it's because it bears no relation to Christmas. You see. "the ancients" did not celebrate their new year at the end of December. It wasn't until Pope Gregory XIII's reformation of the calendar in 1582 that we started celebrating the new year in January, and Christmas had been celebrated on December 25 for centuries at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought.... now that corresponds with the reality on my planet! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• What might make things clear, is to add a [Analemma] diagram to this article's History section. This would show the significances of this annual solar event date or datum. It was the early era's anchor for separating Luna time from Solar. The 25th is the old traditional start of 'a' new year. What we now know as the the 26th (Boxing day) was occasionally added to keep 265 days or there about ( i.e., leap year). Therefore, the ancient calendar never wondered off by more that a day, where as later calenders... well, read the history about bringing the calendars back in line. The church of Rome's calendar was Luna based, just as Easter still is. The sun crossing the meridian on 25th ties it all together. I'm sure that I could have put that more simply but somethings need to be explained more fully -for clarity.--Aspro (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• After considering this further, I think the best course of action would be to stick to what can be found in sources - especially for particulars such as the start of the year, length of the year, type of calendar etc. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• The science of astronomy and accepted history is the source. There is no problem there but as I said in my first post I -”didn't want to get drawn into a long-drawn-out-debated about astronomy vis religion and the solace festivals”. As this puts oneself into the position of Galileo: [27] Ie,. No evidence is good enough for those that have blind-faith in what they have been instructed to believe -rather than, what they have strived to understand.--Aspro (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a debate about astronomy with respect to religion or anything. It's simply history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I say for the third time “didn't want to get drawn into a long-drawn-out-debated about astronomy vis religion and the solace festivals”. So don't twist my words around. History 'includes' what was learned from observations of the heavens. The significance and origin, of the day of Christmas and another dates gives 'context' to understanding of our history. Much of this article goes no further than what is taught in kindergarten. It does not promote understanding. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Being able to fix the 25th was the watershed that enabled mankind to move from the hunter-gather-nomadic stage into the agricultural revolution. It is the founding datum of the agricultural calendar. This was the blessed miracle – not all the later on stuff, that bulks-out this article into the synopsis, that one tell little children before they can comprehend the bigger picture. The 66 books of the Bible even starts off here: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (Genesis 3:19 (King James Version)). This may be what the OP was asking “why Christmas is celebrated on December 25”. Why shouldn’t this article promote proper understanding and included its observational significance? --Aspro (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All that Aspro has said so far sounds like original research. WP:OR. Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on! You must admit... This article is too superficial. The date of Christmas Easter etc., weren’t plucked out of thin air. The Church of Rome defined and absorbed them. They are fixed by observation. Yet, the article does not explain the significance of the 25th. So, how can my repeating what I was taught, (when I wanted to know more than what I was taught at school) be OR? Go-away-and -study-it. Then come back and tell me, that the church and everybody else has got it wrong - and how/but, they just got lucky on the astronomical dates.--Aspro (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the subject. That's clear. Now before I get slapped with an NPA, let me explain.

Easter is (or at least should be) a fixed-date event based on the Jewish calendar, but it's not. The events are supposed to be tied to traditional Passover celebration. That has never been a question. What has been is calculating the date for it. But this article isn't about Easter so I'll leave that discussion for another article. So it's clear that you don't understand the subject by lumping Easter's date in with Christmas'.

Christians don't resort to personal attacks. They listen to both sides, consider and use the quite voice within to reveal to them the truth. I introduced Easter to show that the church employs both the solar and lunar calendar. See Moveable feasts regarding Easter.--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Diagram of an analemma looking east in the northern hemisphere.

Also, the church was celebrating Christ's birth as early as the first century. There were debates as to when they should celebrate it, but some already had a date near our modern date of December 25 very early, but there was stronger support for other dates. Not until Christianity became the State religion was it important. That should be recorded, with references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Aspro:- Anyone can have an opinion (like they say), but in the end wikipedia is built on material that is found, or at least can be found, in sources. That is why I keep stressing the importance of sources here. Repeating what you are taught is not OR only if what you were taught appears in print somewhere. Otherwise, we have to consider it the same as OR. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ Til Eulenspiegel . I now repeat for the forth time -”didn't want to get drawn into a long-drawn-out-debated about astronomy vis religion and the solace festivals”. As this puts oneself into the position of Galileo vis common received belief. Bind, unexamined ideology that forgets, then denies, the foundations of its faith loose those anchors where the Sheeple will end up believing anything their told. You want sources... . Even Wikipedia has an article on the Ephemeris, Analemma etc. What more do you want? [28].Each age, adds and build upon the age that went before. So, therefore, and etcetera, you are probably posting this via a computer that is the combination of some millennia of assimilated knowledge about the world and how to use its resources. This article as it stands is no more than piffle, unless its foundation is explained, but bind, unexamined ideology appears to censor anything illuminating from creeping in. So as I said at the start, I have been watching this article for some time and it appears that more enlighten editors have just given up due to the Galileo persecution effect. The opinions (as you say) of what a few editors will or will not allow in this article should not be given such undue and over-riding credence in this modern day and age. Do I make myself clear on this?--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not really clear, because I keep asking you specifically about sources and I'm not seeing anything in your responses addressing sources, so how is that a clear answer? Let me ask you point blank, what is your opinion on finding sources for any of this? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Analemma for a start. The sun advances on the noon meridian on the 25th. Do you understand how your calender came about?--Aspro (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for referring me to that article, I confess I am not very expert on Analemma. However I did not see any mention in that wikipedia article about anything happening on the 25th, so I am still rather lost. Also when I say "sources" I do not mean wikipedia articles, I mean WP:RSS. You say you were taught this, I must presume you were taught it orally, because evidently you did not read it anywhere, if so, where did you read it? Otherwise how are we to attribute such information in the article? Can we put something like "[ref] Orally transmitted to Wikipedian User:Aspro. [/ref]" ? I don't think we can. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

An Ephemeris then! Available to all navigators. Not oral but clearly printed in black and white. The SUN advances on noon meridian as pro the Analemma.--Aspro (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well sir, I think you are playing games, because I am asking you how the information you would like in the article can be attributed to references per several of our cornerstone policies such as WP:VER, WP:CITE, etc. and you directed me to yet another wikipedia article that also makes no mention of anything happening on the 25th and otherwise helps me very little. So without any reliable, externally published references I don't see how you hope to accomplish much with regard to improving this article as you would wish. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And I think you Sir are employing every fallacy you can come up with. Games People Play (book) describes your game playing. Why don't you want to work with us to improve this article? Ignorance can be over come by inquiry. Let me ask you this: when you go to Midnight Mass on Christmas eve, do you do so, simply because of a sheet of paper on the wall telling you that it is Christmas eve? Where did the authority come from, that stipulates that, that sheet of paper can denote 24th as Christmas eve? Leap years, centenary leap years etc.... the lot. Hello, I can see a light on upstairs but is anybody home?--Aspro (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You are assuming wrong, not everyone celebrates Christmas on December 25, as the article should inform you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the Original Poster question: I was looking to see what Wikipedia had to say about why Christmas is celebrated on December 25--Aspro (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In some countries Christmas is Jan 6 and in others (for an entirely different reason) it is Jan 7. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For the second time read the Original Poster's question. He asked pacifically about the 25th -'not any other dates'. All you have done is to come up with OR and things that just wants to throw a spanner in the works. It is quite understandable, if the Christen Church wanted to downplay, and not publicly admit, that the 25th is not its own original historical date, and instead have adopted another date -from the pagans. Bring you back to the OP's question. It is about the date itself. It is 'that' significance that needs addressing. Encyclopedia Britannica and some others, may not have dared to address this, because they knew of the backlash they would receive – however, here in the 21st century, are we not now, living in a more enlighten age? Martin Luther saw to it, that the common man could read and understand the bible in his own language. Isaac Newton explained God's Cosmos. Many other scientists have taken us out of the world of superstitious thinking of the old primitive church... The OP's question is about the 25th. Does anyone think, I have still not answered it fully? --Aspro (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of OR? Ha ha, that's rich... I'm not making any claims here, all I'm doing is asking you to please show us what sources you get your claims from. You don't want to play along, you want to just repeat these bizarre uncited claims that contradict everything that makes sense to me, like the Catholics used a lunar calendar (no they didn't), that there was some calendar of "the ancients" that supposedly started on Dec 25 (gee, really? What was this calendar called? "The Calendar of the ancients"?) that this was done to commemorate virgin births, etc. So until you are willing to come up with a reliable externally published source (and sorry but an encyclopedia everyone can edit cannot be an acceptable source per WP:OPENSOURCE) I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not say 'your OR' but Wikipedia: subject OR. I meant your accusations of OR against me -'as an argument' and spanner throwing.--Aspro (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

When you ask what calendar? The heavens have not changed over two thousand years nor the constellations. So it is both your calendar and my calendar. When the Pope asked his astronomer to fix the date of Pisces guess what... He did not come up with the birth of the prophet `Jesus of Nazareth' but did what he was asked to do. He fixed the date of the dawning of Pisces over the setting of Aries. Why are you having such a problem with this? Are you saying “I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you” because you are lost for any rational explanation that stands up to the evidence? History is history. This story about the birth of Jesus in a stable and the nativity with the three Magi is the simplified stuff we tell children until they are old enough to comprehend more complexity. Why are you having such a problem with this? --Aspro (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it was more along the lines of list of calendars, and of those there I think it's safe to assume the discussion is centred on either the Gregorian or Julian calendar, although the Magi may have been using the Old Persian calendar, the Zoroastrian calendar or something else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your derision of the Christian faith's claim of the Magi, etc. I would like to remind you not to. It's not a fairy tale we tell children at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say the Magi was fairy tale ? Their part and meaning has been reduced to a simplification we tell children. Going into to the analogy that the three wise men signify, is however, going off on a tangent to the OP's question. The 25th is of the current calendar Julian calendar and of the very early Gregorian before it wondered off. Even Bead spoke of the 25th as a pagan festival back then, in the 7th century. --Aspro (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds way too much as if there is no connection to other winter solstice celebrations. Where did the March 28th conception come from? Did the "virgin" record the date? I don't see how a serious article on Christmas can be written without including other legitimate winter solstice observances and their obvious influences. If you're writing an article for children you should just put up a full page image of "Santa Claus" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeCee10000 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Winterval Myth

The 'Winterval' idea is a total myth perpetuated by the tabloid press in the UK. Winterval was just a marketing scheme for *one* Christmas festival Birmingham City Council put on. Please consider the source with this type of thing - the Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips.

This is quite important because the 'Winterval' myth has been used to stir up prejudice against immigrants, Muslims and Atheists.

Sources to back up my point:

• http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/winterval-modern-myth-christmas
• http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2011/09/27/melanie-phillips-on-winterval/
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xw21x
• http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/12/debunking-winterval-and-war-on.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-chris-allen/muslim-christmas-ban_b_4464410.html
• http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/30/melanie-phillips-threatens-blogger-with-libel-damages-over-winterval/
• http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/mail-admits-winterval-did-not-rename-or.html

The Daily Mail have also published their own retraction of the Winterval Myth:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2058830/Clarifications-corrections.html

SpiceCaramel (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the text of the article suggests that "Winterval" is anything more than how you depict it. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Map of countries where Christmas is not a formal public holiday

Map of countries where Christmas is not a formal public holiday either on December 24/25 or January 6/7.

1) The map includes the " Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". This is an unrecognized entity which doesn't even control the area it claims for itself.

2) The map has a very abstract notion about christmas being "given observance". Whats the criteria for this? I noticed that the countries being shaded under this category have either very small or nonexistent christian communities - in which case, it is unlikely it is observed at all.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.107.154 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The criteria is explained in the caption, where Christmas is a "formal public holiday." Since you noticed that "the countries being shaded under this category have either very small or nonexistent christian communities - in which case, it is unlikely it is observed at all." It seems the map did what it was designed to do, which is explain where Christmas is not celebrated. USchick (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply. I dont think you noticed, but there are two different shades of brown being used in the map. A lighter one to mark countries where christmas is allegedly "given observance" is what I'm referring to. Whats the criteria for this ? What are the sources that prove that the shaded countries match this criteria? This is a very problematic map based on the subjective interpretation of the uploader who created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.107.154 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

For discussion, I posted the map here. I can speak about Thailand, which is a country listed on this map in light brown, and something I'm very familiar with. The majority of population in Thailand is Buddhist. Christmas is not a public holiday. However, the economy of Thailand is based on tourism, so people from all over the world who observe Christmas end up in Thailand around Christmas time, because they have time off. The people and government in Thailand like to keep their tourists happy, so they decorate public places in Christmas themes and hold Christmas programs for people who want to participate. They sell Christmas themed gifts and make a lot of money off of Christmas tourism. So the country of Thailand, government and individuals "give observance" to Christmas as a show of respect to all the foreigners who happen to be in their country during Christmas. At the same time, the holiday itself is not celebrated. All businesses are open and Christmas is not considered a holiday. In response to the map not being sourced, unfortunately there's no rules on Commons about sourcing maps. There are all kinds of maps floating around that editors simply made up. Apparently you have an objection to the map? The entire map or just a portion? Can you please explain your objection? USchick (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is not identified on the map by name. So whoever controls the area, do they recognize Christmas as a public holiday? USchick (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being debated here? The file is in the Commons and should be discussed there. If the wording is wrong here, fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not being debated. An unregistered user brought up a concern, which is yet to be clarified. I don't think new users know the difference between Commons and here. Let's not blow them off just yet. Do they have a right to be heard? USchick (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not blowing the anon off. I stating that if there are fixes to the wording we're using (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic), which is a valid place, then we change it. There's really nothing wrong with the image or its use in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two "the"’s in the opening sentence.....

Are you people really that unprofessional that you couldn't catch that??

•  Done. Seems to have been a c/e oversight. Crumpled Fire (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and to answer your question, no one is paid to edit so, yes, we're that unprofessional, by definition. Almost as unprofessional as not signing your comments when it clearly states "Sign your posts on talk pages". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2014

The celebration of Christmas on the 25th may have its origins in the celebration of Hannukah. 1 Macc 4:52ss and 2 Macc 10:5ss speak of a feast beginning on the 25th of the month Chislev (around December time) lasting for 8 days, a feast of rejoicing involving decorating the Temple. This feast was well established by the time of Christ's birth. It is not hard to imagine that it would have been carried into Christian practice by the early jewish Christians.

Fr. Paul Churchill 86.42.63.58 (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Misrule, Middle Ages Section of Article

Can we please have the "misrule" (section 3.3, under History) linked to the article about Misrule? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Misrule LaEremita (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Origins

Where are the Pagan origins you Christian proprgandists? This page has been turned into Christian propaganda, ignoring the true origins (and the fact that if Jesus actually existed, he was born in March). Isn't Wikipedia meant to unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.236.121 (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Check the history section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yule and Koleda

"Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period.[60] As northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas there, an example being the Koleda,[61] which was incorporated into the Christmas carol. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,[62] a usage first recorded in 900."

My view on this text: Koleda is not Scandinavian.

Suggestion. Replace with:

"Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period.[60] As northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas there. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,[62] a usage first recorded in 900.

"In eastern Europe there were also old pagan traditions incorporated into Christmas, an example being the Koleda,[61]."

Gothia123 (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Esoglou (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141213001447/https://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome to http://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150404005240/http://www.historymatters.appstate.edu/documents/christmaslights.pdf to http://www.historymatters.appstate.edu/documents/christmaslights.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221184805/http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20Commentary%20on%20Daniel%20by%20TC%20Schmidt.pdf to http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20Commentary%20on%20Daniel%20by%20TC%20Schmidt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141213001447/https://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome to http://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101204003316/http://retailindustry.about.com:80/od/abouttheretailindustry/g/black_friday.htm to http://retailindustry.about.com/od/abouttheretailindustry/g/black_friday.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131229202548/http://www.census.gov:80/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005870.html to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005870.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131225235928/http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20051128.html to http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20051128.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

206.110.235.11 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done no request given. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Category Christmas subcat

I want to make a subcategory called Category:Christmas organizations at Category:Christmas for Fraternal Order of Real Bearded Santas, Bronner's Christmas Wonderland, etc. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No Pope Julius I ?

I am wondering why nowhere Pope Julius I is mentioned as the person that defined Christmas Day, at least according to many other sources on the internet. If that is academically not supported, I think it should at least be discussed why that is so. maye (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To amend "While the month and date of Jesus' birth are unknown," by the addition of "and year" thus the clause will read, "While the month, date, and year of Jesus' birth are unknown," — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGMason (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas holiday in Pakistan

Christmas is observed on 25th of December by Pakistani Christians most of whom are Roman Catholics or Protestants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Pakistan Incidentally, the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, falls on 25th of December too and is a national holiday. Thus, Christmas inadvertently becomes a holiday in Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah So, it is suggested that Pakistan's name be excluded from the list where Christmas isn't a holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:250:3C02:300:0:D44:D6AB:21AD (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gift giving

I*m surprised what I read here in the section about gift giving.

Don't You know it was Martin Luther, who proposed Christmas gift-giving to children, lest they esteem St. Nicholas more than the "Christmas child" Jesus? This is the origin of the gift giving. See German Wikipedia:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihnachtsbrauchtum_im_deutschen_Sprachraum#Schenken_in_der_Weihnachtszeit:_Nikolaus.2C_Christkind.2C_Weihnachtsmann_und_Wichteln

-- 93.220.99.77 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Grant, Britannica 1960s

I'm wondering about how relevant or up to date the Michael Grant ref from Britannica is [51]. It seems very odd to not start off this section with Julius Africanus who predates the paganization of Christianity. It almost looks as though the section has been edited by editors who don't realize that the Dec 25(ish) calculation predates the later paganization of the festival - despite it being mentioned below. Thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

I am as a citizen of Ukraine, asking you to replace this picture (1) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Christmas-gift-bringers-Europe.jpg on this picture(2)https://pp.vk.me/c628830/v628830001/318d4/ihglTHyX7q0.jpg in the reason of misunderstanding - the main Christmas gift-bringer in Ukraine is St.Nickolas the same as in Poland, not Grandfather Frost as in Russia and Belarus. Providing you a reliable source - link of ukrainian TV News Service where is the explanations of who is St.Nickolas (whose name in ukrainian language is Swjatyj Mykolaj(Святий Миколай))for Ukraine. The link: 1 Thanks, Helga

Sacuki21 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sacuki21, this is my picture, thank you for your remarks. However, my picture was also based on this map, where you can clearly see, that the Grandfather Frost was marked as the Christmas gift bringer in Ukraine. But as I see for example here, it looks like that in Ukraine seem to be at least two gift bringers. If you agree, I will change Ukraine on the map as it is in the second image, as it looks like, that it should be more corresponding to reality. Best regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Image changed. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We should really be using a version that is either SVG or PNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Christmas in Russia

Oddly enough, I only found said great article via Google because I wasn't able to find a wiki cross-link to the Russian holidays. In case you're wondering, yes, Christmas in Russia will start right now. Remember the Orthodox church is off by 13 days with their Julian calendar, and the 25 December 2015 on their calendar would be the 7 January 2016 on our Gregorian one. Is there any list available like Christmas in <insert your country here>? Otherwise I'm really wondering how people are supposed to find articles like the one I linked to in this headline. -andy 2.242.75.76 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See the article Christmas traditions. The only link to this was previously rather buried within the text of this long article, but I've now also added it to the 'See also' section at the bottom of the article. It's still rather hard to find, though, and I wonder whether there ought to be a mention of it right at the top. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just add it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

buried within the text of this long article My point exactly! Thanks for making things clearer now. Everyone please remember that people would first link to this article, and then look elsewhere -- in this order! That's because they expect to find some country-specific Christmas traditions without having to delve through several pagefuls of long-winded prose. -andy 2.242.55.243 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Please remove 1): In his work Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) identified the conception of Jesus as March 25 and linked it to the crucifixion at the time of the equinox, with the birth of Jesus nine months after on December 25 at the time of the solstice.[87] Please remove 2): Irenaeus (c. 130–202) viewed Christ's conception as March 25 in association with the Passion, with the nativity nine months after on December 25.[87] Replace with: nothing Because: The source cited for these two remarks in footnote 87 is "Michael Alan Anderson, Symbols of Saints (ProQuest 2008 ISBN 978-0-54956551-2), pp. 42–46." However, a look at the actual text from this author as well as Irenaeus' original text to which Anderson refers in his writing shows that the text of Irenaeus does not identify March 25 as the conception of Christ, nor does Irenaeus link the conception of Christ to the crucifixion, nor does Irenaeus place the crucifixion at the equinox, nor does he place the nativity of Christ nine months later on December 25. As articulated presently in the wikipedia Christmas article, these two remarks about Irenaeus as well as the citation of Anderson's book are misleading regarding the historical facts. They give the wikipedia reader the unsubstantiated impression that Irenaeus' work provides a means of identifying December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth. In fact, a look at the paragraphs from Irenaeus that Anderson cites in his work shows that Irenaeus is not even discussing the topics Anderson claims at all. Its seems that Anderson has either mistakenly cited the wrong passage from Irenaeus or misrepresented Irenaeus entirely.

For reference, Anderson's remarks on Irenaeus are available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=FdN4aGeUhpsC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=irenaeus+%22december+25%22&source=bl&ots=rizQIZmDvu&sig=So4qCuA29tye-7GayHuoaVbbNzc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnrYjRp9DJAhVV82MKHeDTAHo4ChDoAQguMAQ#v=onepage&http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.viii.htmlq=irenaeus%20%22december%2025%22&f=false

For reference, the original quote from Irenaeus cited by Anderson in his book is available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.viii.html 2602:306:C453:6EE0:A97F:82F3:FE78:28D6 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Late answer, but I would like to see some other discussion. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am the poster of the original edit request from Dec. 10, 2015. I have provided a direct link to the specific text of the source cited in the wikipedia article (Anderson) and a direct link to the relevant text of Irenaeus referrence by Anderson. One simply needs to look at both texts to confirm that the statement on the wikipedia page about Irenaeus is not supported by Irenaeus' writings. I have been a long-time user and defender of the reliability of wikipedia as well as a financial contributor. I will continue to use wikipedia because I believe that, in general it does provide reliable information in its articles and exhibits the scholarly integrity to make its readers aware when a statement in an article may not be reliable or supported. In this case, I have documented what appears to be a clear instance of an unsubstantiated and false statement that has been placed in the Christmas article. As such, I believe my request merits action on the part of wikipedia editors who have taken on the responsibility of protecting the integrity and reliability of its articles. I would like to resubmit that the assertions about Irenaeus be removed. At the very least it seems a notation should be added in each instance alerting the readers that the statements about Irenaeus may not be valid and are in need of further verification and perhaps providing the text, or a link to the text, of Irenaeus writings for the readers to evaluate the statement for themselves. Thank you. ~scottmac1975 (original poster)

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101210031146/http://apuritansmind.com/Christmas/DankoChristmasBanned.htm to http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christmas/DankoChristmasBanned.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070225081456/http://www.watertownfirstpres.org:80/sermons/12-11-05.html to http://www.watertownfirstpres.org/sermons/12-11-05.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101219215754/http://www.christianchurchofgod.com:80/httpwww.christianchurchofgod.comhistofchristmas.htm to http://www.christianchurchofgod.com/httpwww.christianchurchofgod.comhistofchristmas.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207061529/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu:80/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm to http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100915080827/http://www.voanews.com:80/specialenglish/archive/2004-12/a-2004-12-03-2-1.cfm to http://voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2004-12/a-2004-12-03-2-1.cfm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091128094123/http://www.philly.com:80/philly/news/breaking/20091125_Appeals_Court__School_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html to http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091125_Appeals_Court__School_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified March 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310013925/http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=12890&aid=&tgid=&amid=12890&g12890=x&g9130=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x to http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=12890&aid=&tgid=&amid=12890&g12890=x&g9130=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207061529/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu:80/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm to http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just one obvious mistake

With respects to the nativity explanation you cite Mathew's account they were not astronomers but astrologers The word used in the Greek text is Magi. Here are some quotes from other Wikipedia articles Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; Latin plural of magus) is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both ASTROLOGY and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.53.95 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

please change on history section:

Although the dating as December 25 predates pagan influence, the later development of Christmas as a festival includes elements of the Roman feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra.[51]

to:

Although the dating as December 25 predates pagan influence, the later development of Christmas as a festival includes elements of the Roman feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra [51] a Persian divinity.

Naranji (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It's linked to Mithra, but I will update it to link to Mithraism, as that's the Roman variant. While it was based on a Zoroastrian, not necessarily Persian, god, the Roman form diverged. It was quite distinct as it was absorbed into the Roman pantheon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Betrothal

Ancient Jews did not have betrothal, they had marriage (Kiddushin) and consummation of marriage (Nisuin). So, Joseph and Mary were never betrothed, they were married. Whether their marriage was consummated or not is another matter. See [29]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they were not ancient Jews, they were from the fist century and it was common for 100 years prior to that period: See Talmud Kiddushin, Mishna 1:1 and the main article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say above does not make sense. Ancient, as in antiquity or ancient history, means the period before the Middle Ages. The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, states that "Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law." Speaking of Erusin: "In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce." Therefore Erusin or Kiddushin mean (present-day, Western-style) marriage and they are mistranslated as (present-day, Western-style) betrothal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say may make sense to you, but history is divided into more that "after the middle ages" and "before the middle ages". Ancient Jews in my history books means before the common era. I have seen the Jewish Encyclopedia definition as well. I have no problems understanding that a term common in the 15th century was used in early translations and more recent scholarship may use a term that is more accurate to the word used.

How would you suggest that we translate the word used in Matthew 1:18 "μνηστευθείσης" (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1.htm)? The root is "mnésteuó" (mnesteuo http://biblehub.com/greek/3423.htm). It is commonly translated as betrothed in English (KJV, NASB, ESV) although some modern translations use other words: "engaged" (NET, MSG, WEB) "pledged to be married" (NIV and its variants) "espoused" (KJ21) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 1%3A18&version=NET;MSG;WEB;NIV;KJ21). You will likely see edit warring over the term so you had better back-up any edits with the Koine Greek and explanation of the term, even if only in a note. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What I said is that ancient Jewish betrothal does not mean the same as modern Western betrothal. The koine may really mean engagement. But that is another argument that the gospel is historically inaccurate, unless there is good evidence that 1st century BCE Jews had engagements before getting their Erusin/Kiddushin. Since apparently Joseph and Mary got married in the 1st century BCE. I know that the way I put it is WP:OR, but maybe there are reliable sources which made this point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The original word has a meaning and it's not entirely clear what it means in modern English. If you don't want to offer a suggestion, I can't help you. There is no OR at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I quote from the article you quoted, Tgeorgescu:1). "kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal)". Doesn't add "wrongly" translated as betrothal, why? 2). "However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other" (emphasis added). That's pretty much looks like betrothal to me...3). "In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. ...There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear.." (emphasis added). So, as I see it, there was a long period of being legally married on one hand, but one the other hand living apart in a period of time anything could happent. 4). "Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English...Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man...However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete" (emphasis added). That is, be married typically or not, true married life begins with the consummation of the marriage (as it's so much, and legally so, happens today). Wolfymoza (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again, what English wording do you suggest? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't suggest a word, but it could be mentioned that "betrothal" could be kind of a misunderstanding or mistranslation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then state that. If you want, you could propose your change here and seek input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite?

With 11,000 words of main text, this article is in need of serious culling. No doubt many readers come here to answer the question, "Why is Christmas on December 25?" so this issue needs some attention. The scholarship in the last thirty years has all been debunking the Sol Invictus theory and arguing in favor of the Incarnation-on-March-25th-plus-nine-months theory. As far as sources go, New Catholic Encyclopedia recommends Susan Roll's Toward the Origin of Christmas (1995) and Thomas Talley's On the Origins of the Liturgical Year (1991). In popular works, you often see the theory that the holiday is based on Saturnalia. I don't believe there is any scholarship to support this idea. This is what I am working on. Pandas and people (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not too long. There is a reference supporting the idea and there is evidence that it is based on that date, although I'm not sure it is, nor does it need to be, scholarly evidence. If you feel a rewrite is required, feel free to give it a try. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the word count as the going-in-all-directions aspect of the article. My idea is to give it some focus. I'm working on something in my sandbox. So far, I have a lead and an early history section. Tell me what you think. Pandas and people (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The variety of content is not a bad thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User: Pandas and people that this article needs a serious re-write but probably for different reasons. Maybe however, we can find some common ground. In days of yore, before artificial light was affordable, Luna months were important to the people of the time. But `lunar months don't synchronize with the solar year. There is pretty conceiving statistical evidence that Gerald Hawkins showed that Stonehenge (built many millennia ago) was a way of keeping the Luna and Solar calendars aliened. At the end of the winter solaria the sun 'suddenly' traveling north, due to the parallaxes effect upon the observer. That date is (on modern calendar), either the 25th or 26th of December and can be witnessed by all by just hammering a few stakes into the ground and looking at the sun. Even the Venerable Bede noted this common practice of observing the sun's move in his writing, at a time when he was using a different and Luna calendar which caused his date of 'Christ birth' to drift. Because the the year is not exactly 365 days, the actual date that the sun disc has 'observably' moved north can differ by a day, over a period of four to five years. (this is simple astrophysics) John Dee expanded this and campaigned for a calendar reform because the Popes reformed calendar did no take this into account and was only true for 400 years (it was easier than tying to write out the exact algorithm in roman numerals -try it and you will see what I mean). Yet, the pope still moved the date of 'Christ birth', to the 25th as it made more sense. Astronomy was not advanced enough then to determine the exact date of equinoxes and add nine months. Were talking about the 1500's. When our calendar wasn't even fixed to Christ Birth on 0 BC but was actually fixing the date of the new age of Aries. Ecclesiastical scholars may pontificate all they want but computers provide a continuous astronomical time line. Even down to the three "μάγοι" from the east representing the conjunction of the three planets over `Bethlehem'. Why – if they so-much profess to offering the truth, why do the priests of the modern day church go out of they way to mislead the young and foolish?--Aspro (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I’m not sure about all that, but I do agree with the part about Christmas being placed on December 25 to correspond with the date of the winter solstice. The current version of the article repeatedly stresses that solstice celebration represents a continuation of pagan tradition. Patristic writing is full of strong condemnations of pagan festivals and rituals, so this theory turns the Church Fathers into hypocrites. Augustine’s Christmas sermon explains that Jesus came into the world when it was darkest, and that afterwards the light began to increase. So you can explain a solstice date without reference to paganism. Saturnalia was on December 17. It was not a solstice festival. The Roman solstice festival was Bruma. It doesn’t seem to have been all that important as a holiday. Pandas and people (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally more important as you move north, day lengths vary more and the seasonal differences become more extreme. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Egypt was the land of solar worship. Egyptian solstice (January 6, now Epiphany) was the start of the planting season. In the North, nothing much happened on the solstice. If you are thinking of Yule, that was created in the ninth century to compete with Christmas. Pandas and people (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

3,100 BC seems pretty early to me. Stonehenge#Function_and_construction Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Augustine’s Christmas sermon is virtual a direct copy of the Egyptian Unconquered Sun, so it is very much pagan in origin. The days are already getting longer after the 'shortest day.' The important point is that the sun only starts to move north on the 25th/26th of December. Also, the importance of any festival was depend on the local climate and farming practices. The church hence adapted importance according to local traditions. This is evident the further north one lives. For instance: In Canada, Thanksgiving is celibates early than in the US because the agricultural year ends earlier. In Italy (surrounded by the climatic modifying effects of the Mediterranean sea) it was the 24th of November. This is all about the new church adopting the local calendars and imprinting their own interpretations upon them (and often ruffling up a few feathers along the way when they became too patronizing). For the feast of the nativity. Sermon 191 St. Augustine even states that Christ (note: doesn’t call him Ἰησοῦς the person) was born of a virgin mother, exactly the same as the Egyptian story of the cycle of the calendar. It is pagan through and through and no amount of theology is going to overturn astrophysics and climatology.--Aspro (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement "mislead the young and foolish" is bias at best and ignorant at worst. Christians took over the holiday and gave it a different meaning. I don't know why that is misleading anyone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ignorance! That is -if you don't mind me saying so is the pot calling the kettle black. The new church displaces the local learned men and by the third generation everybody believed that it was the new church that had enlightened them. Delve in to politics’s and economics to understand the process. The church of Rome had by the 1500's re-established the way that the Roman Empire bled Europe of its economic wealth. Italy then enjoyed the renascence period, were there wealthy could afford to patronizes talented men - to just spend their time painting pretty pictures, sculpture and design exotic buildings for them. It was about that time too, that many princes of Europe got the hump because the Popes were beginning to re-establish themselves as Emperors at Europe's expense. This is not about religion per sa but the power-wars that the clergy used to pull the wool over the eyes of their sheepples (err.. mean flock). You must have University near you – get a library visiting card and do some reading. After all, your comment suggest that you see ignorance as a bad thing. You made it sound as if I made an evil comment but if you read the new testament in Koine Greek you will see that ἁμαρτάνω actually means missing the mark and so one of us has to have missed the mark, more than the other. --Aspro (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see you're full of vitriol too. No sense in trying to explain things to you since you believe know it all. I'm sorry to have trod on your misconceptions. Feel free to fix the fence and send me the bill. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. Belief means to accept something without proof. Historical, astrophysical and other data shows that religious orthodox 'beliefs' don't add up and so are inventions of the church. Once, people believed that fossils where placed in the rock by the devil. Do you today believe this too or have you moved on. Have notice too, that you just give very short replies (acidic) to much fuller explanations above that encourage the reader to see the bigger picture. So please, if you ever come across other people full of vitriol, be sure to take the plank out of your own eye before attempting to taking the specks out of another’s. Don't bother to reply as you're attempting to introduce wasteful Begging the questions. When I was young, some priests tried to come on strong about putting 'belief' before faith (vitriol ?). Now, they can't do that to me...but that doesn't mean we don't get on very well -like a house (church) on fire. There is a lot of common ground for us to discuss and ponder upon (especially over a bottle of good port). It's just that after their training, some (not all) come out thinking they have to stick to the same old stories, despite their own reservations and doubts about the 'belief' bits. --Aspro (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I have no doubt that the effort of the early Constantine Christian leaders was to replace dies natalis solis invicti, which was part of the sol invicta cult, with a Christianized version of the festivities. It was this festival that used to attempt to supplant Saturnalia. But you keep believing what you want. The fact still remains that more than 1500 years later, it doesn't matter. The celebration of Christmas has outlasted either celebration by more than three times their life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure sorry I brought this subject up. As far as the Sol Invictus theory goes, it was debunked long ago by Steven Hijmans: "December 25 was neither a longstanding nor especially important feast day of Sol...In fact there is no firm evidence that this feast of Sol on December 25 antedates the feast of Christmas at all."[30] Pandas and people (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Opening

Christmas is by definition a feast on December 25, as you can see from Merriam Webster and American Heritage. IMO, the phrase "observed most commonly on December 25" is unnecessarily weasally. It wrongly suggests that there is a "real date" of Christmas that is something other than December 25. Before anyone says, "What about the Orthodox?" They also celebrate on December 25, but using their own calendar. Pandas and people (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

American Heritage and Merriam-Webster are both American sources, and with Christmas being on Dec. 25 in the federal U.S. calendar, we'd expect them to define it as such. Orthodox churches—but also Dec. 24 celebrations—have always been the reason for the current wording, and from arguments here before it seems that the current wording was reached as a compromise to avoid a word salad in the intro explaining all the dates it is celebrated in Orthodox and other churches. And yes, as you've stated Orthodox dates are still all geared around Dec. 25 in accordance with the Julian calendar, but Wikipedia refers to the Gregorian calendar when listing dates of celebration, so that's irrelevant here. Additionally, many countries in Northern Europe celebrate primarily on Dec. 24 instead of Dec. 25, which is also a factor in the wording. If it's between the current consensus and a word salad explaining the various dates (which we've now condensed to the infobox and a section below), I'll go with the current consensus. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The weasel words are to make room for those who celebrate on Christmas Eve, not those who follow a different calendar system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The opening is supposed to be in line with what other reference works do, not the misconceptions of Wikipedia editors. Pandas and people (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you put the attitude away? I'm quite tired of it. It's in no way constructive. If you insist on continuing, I will request a topic ban. Either make constructive suggestions or don't bother commenting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could try not acting like you own the article? Pandas and people (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Deal. Easy on my end since I simply offer commentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh good. I'll go right ahead and rewrite the opening. Oh, and do you think you could cut it out with the threatening summaries? Pandas and people (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as the opening is factual and based on the current content. I will stop the threatening summaries when you start behaving with respect to other editors and belief systems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's go back to basics. Before anyone had clocks, the day ended at sunset. Remember, that the first part of the day of God's creation of the world started in darkness. Each new day started off in darkness. Even in modern day Europe, people like to finish work early in the afternoon on Christmas Eve so that they can get home and prepare. The women-folk do their last minute household preparation and their men-folk go down the Pub and meet old friends, then all meet up for Midnight Mass at the local church. It is like, when a woman goes into labour today, family and friends excitedly spread the word by mobile of the 'expectation' that a new one is about to enter their world and the first dawn of Christmas finally heralds such a delivery of a new Son/Sun. So the calendar on the wall may say that the 24th is the 24th until midnight, yet the celebration of Christmas still starts on Christmas Eve in the Christian world – just as the pagans did it.--Aspro (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

PS. Christmas isn’t about the 'feast' but the birth. When most people worked on the land they broke their fast (breakfast) with the main meal of the day, to give them the energy for the rest of the day. Dinner they ate like a pauper and supper like a church mouse. There are numinous studies to show this age old wisdom. Here is just one: [31]. So the 'feast' did not start until breakfast time on the 25th but the 'feast' is not a necessary part. During the second world war many families in Europe celebrated Christmas despite not having any food to feast upon. By all mean edit WP but please, lets don't add over simplified, unexamined vernacular beliefs. --Aspro (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Christmas is about the celebration of the birth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Verily. It is about the celebration of the birth of a savior, that will in the coming year, provide sufficient bounty to feed one's family during the following winter months (way before supermarkets had been invented).--Aspro (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, it's the end of August. Time to start "Crimbo" shopping for "Chrissy" presents. Doubtless next week I'll hear my first massacred carol and bang my head on tinsel in a shop. Sarcasm aside, I do know one individual who has already purchased and wrapped all her presents and written her cards. When we saw her in early August we were given a bag to keep until Christmas. :-( Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership

It make sense to link nativity of Jesus as early in the article since that what celebration is about. That Jesus is not linked anywhere in the article is immaterial as that subject is broached in the linked article. This article is not about Jesus directly, but celebration of Jesus' birth. That change was made long ago and was reverted, by the same editor who is opposing it now. Time to discuss since you're at 3RR too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about Jesus directly, but celebration of Jesus' birth. So you really believe that emphasis should be "Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus", and not "Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus"? I disagree. In fact, Christians have argued about whether it celebrates his actual birth, incarnation, etc. But they've never argued that it celebrates HIM. I doubt visitors to the article would be interested in in being linked to what amounts to a second article detailing Jesus' birth, rather than an article about Jesus. Nativity of Jesus is linked in the first sentence of the second intro paragraph, where it is more fitting to do so. It's also in the infobox, where another instance of "Jesus" was sneakily changed to [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus]] at some point as well. Pipelinking a direct plain reference to "Jesus Christ" to any article other than the one about Jesus Christ doesn't make sense, and linking to an article about the nativity of Jesus in the introductory sentence is not appropriate as we have an entire subsection dedicated to that subject on this article, and it is already linked elsewhere multiple times. I find it interesting that you can say that Jesus not being linked anywhere in the article is "immaterial", considering it has been linked here from day one in 2001 in the same opening sentence, and Christmas is specifically a celebration of this person's birth. I believe it should be plainly obvious to anyone that avoiding any direct link to Jesus in an article about Christmas is preposterous. Especially when the links being used in its stead are either misleading, biased, or already present multiple times elsewhere in the article. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 07:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not link to both? Rwenonah (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The subject is about the celebration of the nativity, so at the very least it should be linked first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Christmas is about a birth (whether it be Ἰησοῦς the prophet; who's birthday we don't know or the rebirth of the sun who's date we do know to the day, hour, and millisecond) the nativity is a narrative (story). It has nothing to do with the 25th nor the birth of the prophet as a historical flesh-and- blood human figure. The best that scholars can come up with is, the nativity is an analogy of a conjunction. A conjunction which a long dead scholar used to fix the calendar to the start of the age of Aries. Thus, giving the BC/AD transition point. This article is about a day, which many people of this world -refer to as Christmas. --Aspro (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We already did link to both, before someone removed the link to Jesus and replaced with Jesus in Christianity or more instances of Nativity of Jesus. The current revision restores the balance; before my edits there were no instances of Jesus. I strongly support the opening sentence link being to Jesus (which is a Featured Article by the way), and the second paragraph being to Nativity of Jesus as it had been for years in the stable long-lasting version I restored. When an article begins by saying it is about the celebration of the birth of someone, the article about that someone should be linked straight away. IMO it's just common sense. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But why not link to both in the first sentence.Rwenonah (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Do you have a proposal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

xxx 157.185.67.50 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sunmist (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

reference 85

This edit request relates to the article policies concerning verifiability. Michael Alan Anderson's book is cited as the reference source (85) for the claim that Irenaeus identified December 25 as the day of Jesus' birth does not contain or include verification for this claim. (This claim about Irenaeus is made twice in the Wikipedia article once under History and again under Date.)

A look at the specific section of Anderson's work referenced in the Wikipedia Christmas article can be found here in which Anderson specifies the exact portion of Irenaes' text he claims as the source of his conclusion:
https://books.google.com/books?id=FdN4aGeUhpsC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=irenaeus+%22december+25%22&source=bl&ots=rizQIZmDvu&sig=So4qCuA29tye-7GayHuoaVbbNzc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnrYjRp9DJAhVV82MKHeDTAHo4ChDoAQguMAQ#v=onepage&http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.viii.htmlq=irenaeus%20%22december%2025%22&f=false

For comparison, the section of Irenaeus' writings cited by Anderson can be found here:
For reference, the original quote from Irenaeus cited by Anderson in his book is available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.viii.html

Accordingly, I suggest that the two statements regarding Irenaeus be removed from the Wikipedia article.

Thank you,
18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)scottmac1975

THE history of white — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.221.59 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Merging" of date sections

I don't think that the "merging" of the two date sections has been a positive edit. First of all, a lot of sourced material vanished for no particular reason and without discussion. Second, the new additions seem to drastically overemphasize opposition to the idea that the Dec. 25th data was chosen relative to pagan festival dates, providing little explanation of the theory itself and cherry picking academic judgements that aren't representative of scholarly consensus. It's certainly not clear to me why, and on what basis of discussion, the entire tone of the article has been so drastically changed. Finally, the whole capitalized-"Hypothesis" thing is just bad; in my experience, scholars don't refer to them that way, and it looks unprofessional and flows much worse than the previous section. Other editors thoughts? Rwenonah (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Both The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy of Worship and New Catholic Encyclopedia recommend Roll and Talley. Neither tertiary source recommends any other authority on the dating issue. So these two books can be considered the go-to sources on this subject. I have access to a copy of Talley's book, so am I trying to make the article fit his general scheme. Frankly, it was big a mess earlier. The dating issue was discussed in two separate places with no logical reason for a division. Both sections were enormous masses of conflicting information. Neither was summarized in a way that gave the reader an overview of the various theories held by the different scholarly schools of thought. Pandas and people (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

But regardless of sources, i don't see any discussion agreeing to a massive restructuring of the article. You didn't just merge the two sections - you deleted a vast quantity of sourced material and in doing so totally changed what the article is saying. It's also not clear to me why one of your go-to sources for historiography is a Catholic book ... there would seem to be some POV issues with intrinsically religious sources. It's certainly not clear why the entire article should be restructured to fit one author's general scheme, regardless of how authoritative he is. This isn't to say that i disagree with your restructuring entirely, it just concerns me that the relative weight given to the two theories is being shifted based on one author who explicitly advocates for one of them. Rwenonah (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Every author has his bias. The article has always had numerous cites to Catholic Encyclopedia. Surely New Catholic Encyclopedia is a better source. Neither Talley nor Roll (nor SCM) are Catholic. Isn't the article already much too long for an extended discussion of the date of creation? In the earlier version, anything that suggested Christmas was Christian holiday was pushed off into some dark corner. I think it was supposed to be chronological, but it didn't quite work out. I gave each theory its own section. Pandas and people (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Simple typos and grammatical errors

There are a couple stylistic issues that require an account to be fixed. First, the small typo tChristmas found at the end of "Introduction of feast" and second the seemingly spurious comma in the sentence "The best known of these figures today is red-dressed Santa Claus, of diverse origins," found in the section "Gift-bearing figures".

I've done the first one for you, but I'm not sure I agree about the second, there is a pause in spoken English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Date- Maccabean theory

Anyone know any sources for the theory that the date of Christmas is based on the date of the Maccabean rededication of the temple at Jerusalem? The date is the 25th of Chislev in the Hebrew calendar, the nearest month to Chislev in the Julian and Gregorian calendars being December. It seems the most plausible of all theories in my view. Oliver Low (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that theory, no. But the oldest Christian holidays are based on Jewish holidays. There was a feast on March 25 (now Annunciation) based on Passover. Epiphany (January 6) is based on Sukkot. Christmas developed in the fourth century, which is several centuries later. By that time, Christianity may have been less closely tied to Judaism. Pandas and people (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not heard that theory either. I did know that Christmas was celebrated in March and then January 56 (Armenian Orthodox still celebrate that date while other churches followed the new December 25 date). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Surely you mean Epiphany, which of course is still celebrated on January 6. In ancient times, this festival focused on the Baptism. Luke 3:23 was misread to mean that Jesus was exactly 30 when he was baptized. So the Nativity was sometimes celebrated at the same time. Pandas and people (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No. I mean Christmas. I know the difference and I questioned the priest at length. https://www.armenianchurch-ed.net/feasts/feastschristmas/about/ http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/news/Why-Armenians-Celebrate-Christmas-on-January-6th/ I did get the date wrong by one day and I have stricken Jan 5 and replaced it with Jan 6. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Your second link refers to the holiday as, “Theophany or Epiphany (or Astvadz-a-haytnootyoon in Armenian) means "revelation of God."” That is to say, the name in Armenian translates directly as “Epiphany.” The other link discusses a ritual the Armenian church performs to commemorate the Baptism. Whatever Armenians do with the holiday, my point is that Epiphany was originally a feast to honor the Baptism.
To get back to the original subject of this thread, my view is that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after Incarnation on March 25. March 25 was selected as the date of Incarnation because it was considered the first day of spring, or at least that is what Africanus’s writing suggests. Pandas and people (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The formal name is “Տօն Ս. Ծննդեան և Աստուածայայտնութեան մեր Տիրոջ Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի,” which translates as Feast of the Nativity and Theophany of our lord Jesus Christ.[32]
Astvadz-a-haytnootyoon=Աստուածայայտնութեան=Theophany/Epiphany.[33] See also here.
Astvadz=Աստուած=God[34]
a =այա = a preposition
haytnootyoon = յայտնութիւն=Revelation[35]. Pandas and people (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Date format

Hi, I've changed all of the dates to YMD as these were all changed in 2015 to MDY - There's absolutely no need for them all to be of one format and as this was done a year ago it's impossible to ndo that revision. Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Take that up with the editor who made the changes. As I just wrote on your talk page: MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. Self revert would be in order while the discussion is ongoing, you are at WP:3RR otherwise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What would be the point ? ... The article cannot be reverted back to a whole year, Those don't apply because the article was never with MDY in the first place, I coulhn't careless about 3rr - Just because you're American doesn't mean you get to have everything in American (exactly the same with me - Just because I'm British doesn't mean I get to have everything in DMY). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Also I've done it in YMD to save everyone edit warring - DMY shouldn't be the main format and neither should MDY so lets meet each other at halfway, FWIW I hate YMD however other than reverting the entire article back I see no other option, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You're on thin ice. You're making decisions without facts in flying in the face of the guidelines and at three reverts you should probably revert your own edit.

The article should use one format and you'll have to determine why {{U|Kind Tennis Fan} elected to change it MDY here. Your decision to ignore is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

One last thing, making a change to DMY, without explaining why in the edit summary, was problematic. You should always explain your changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it but I can hardly do anything about it can I ?, Is KTF gonna revert back to an entire year and then readd the edits back ? .. No!, In reality there's not a single thing you or I can do about it now except meet half way and have the article in YMD, Nope I'll admit that shouldn't of happened - I originally changed it because I thought you had changed them from one to another however you hadn't, The no-editsum was because I use autofill which didn't work (and I never noticed it not until a few edits later), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I get you guys some eggnog? Mulled wine? Bûche de Noël? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivertorch - I have a bad secret ... I've never had eggnog in my entire life but I'd love to have some :), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As a child at Christmas I was often treated to a glass of eggnog. Never took to it. Sipped it because I thought it was expected of me . Think it one of those thinks you either like or don't. My grandfather’s single malt whiskeys however was another thing! Oh! the joy when gets from one's elders leading one astray at an early age! Fancy French Brandy was more expensive but the single malts were and are still heaven. Those are the Christmas's I remember. So don't fret about never having sampled eggnog - try a really good malt. For whisky to be sold legally as whisky, it has to be matured for a minimum of 2 years in the cask. Just go for one that is a tiny bit older. Anything from Islay is perfect. Even if the Date Format states that it it has been matured for only 2 years, 2 days, 2 hours and 20 minutes.--Aspro (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: There is something you can do. I correctly applied the MDY format to the whole article and you reverted it. If you self-revert, you'll avoid 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, You incorrectly applied it - Sure you didn't know at the time but it's still incorrect regardless, I shan't revert at all because the edit isn't wrong, I would suggest you take your concerns up with KTF who incorrectly converted the entire article in the first place. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There are three separate issues here.

1. There is a date format applied to the article. Whether or not it was correct to add at the time does not change the fact that it has been applied and applies to the whole article. You decided to change that to DMY without reason and without consultation. I applied the correct date format back per WP:DATERET. I'm not wrong about that.
2. You can revert your last edit. I'm not wrong about that.
3. I didn't apply the date format, so you'll have to take up your beef with the editor who applied it. I'm not wrong about that.

So I don't see what I'm wrong about. I'm not wrong about you being at 3RR either. So far there's not one thing I'm wrong about. So I would suggest you take up with the editor who applied the date format. As for me, I'm following DATERET now. Have a merry Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not the MDY shouldn't of been appllied to the article and It won't be applied, Feel free to seek WP:30 however as it stands there's no consensus to convert to either MDY or DMY hence why I've reached halfway and converted the entire article to YMD,

I'm not reverting anything because as i said you have no consensus regardless of what the other editor had incorrectly done,

You're converting an article to a date format repeatedly despite there being no consensus for it - Yes you wasn't the person who originally converted however you're not exactly helping with the reconverting and I fail to see what use it is bringing Tennis Fan in to this ... They, me nor you can't do jack about it now so how about meet me half way and we leave it at YMD ?, I see no issue with that. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, it was applied. You don't seem to understand that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because it was applied doesn't mean it was correct does it ? ... I could apply a "promo" tag to the article ... Would it be correct ? ... No ofcourse not. I would suggest you read what you cite as with the greatest of respect it seems it's you who doesn't have a basic understanding of them. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You're the only one opposed to it, so of course there's no consensus. I am applying the correct date format. That's why it's in place. As I have said multiple times: the guideline is to have one date format. Someone applied it. Whether it was right or wrong is not my call. Now I am enforcing the correct date format. That it's not a format you like is a different issue. Whether it is correct is not the issue. Whether we're following it correctly is.

If you want to open a new discussion on the consensus, feel free to, but until then, the date format should remain at that which was set. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You just don't get it Davey. The date format is to be applied to the whole article. Even your incorrect change to DMY applied to the whole article. If you want to overturn the current date format, I'll be happy to discuss, but until a new decision is made, the current should be applied, especially when editors make incorrect date format additions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop fucking edit warring - The next time you revert I will drag you arse to AN3 myself!, There is no possible way this entire article can be reverteD back to december - there's just way to much stuff to add... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lovely profanity. You are edit warring over the correct application of the date format. I am simply applying it. I don't know why you keep thinking I want you to revert the article to some version. I wanted to you to revert your removal of the correct date format and that's all. If you would like to discuss the application of different date format, I'm happy to do it, but until such time, use the one that's present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the Tennis tool to add it either and there's no consensus for you to add it either!, It wasn't correct in the first place so why try and enforce something that's not correct ?,

Will do but I would suggest you stop edit warring for now otherwise you might end up back at AN3!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Name calling too? Seriously are you capable of discussing this like an adult? Again, you are edit warring over this too! I do not deny that there was no consensus to add the date format at the time. No discussion, but changing it to dmy has less consensus. Not applying the selected date format is wrong per the guideline. The only option you have is to discuss a new format. My suggestion would be to use ISO-8601 for references (2016-12-27) and to use MDY in sections where it's common (United States and Canada) and DMY where it's common (UK, Australia and New Zealand). We would have to determine what to use in other sections, but date format by country should assist. But just to clarify, until a new format is achieved we are incorrectly applying date formats other than MDY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'm more than capable however when you repeat yourself 20 thousand times you begin to lose the plot as am I right now, MDY isn't the correct date format here neither is DMY - Sure we could convert them all back but to do that would quite honestly take forever and I don't see why you or I should tidy someone elses mess and lets be honest you applying the bloody format doesn't help either,

I've changed it to DMY once where I then admitted I was wrong to do so hence why it's in YMD for now,

ANywho as we both can't reach an agreement I've started an RFC in the hope a solution can be found. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)