Talk:Christmas

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)

Possible Inconsistencies

The first paragraph of section "20th century" and the first one of "Decorations" are inconsistent:

20th century

Up to the 1950s, in the UK, many Christmas customs were restricted to the upper classes and better-off families. The mass of the population had not adopted many of the Christmas rituals that later became general. The Christmas tree was rare.

Decorations

The practice of putting up special decorations at Christmas has a long history. In the 15th century, it was recorded that in London it was the custom at Christmas for every house and all the parish churches to be "decked with holm, ivy, bays, and whatsoever the season of the year afforded to be green".[161]

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.[1]
Astvadz-a-haytnootyoon=Աստուածայայտնութեան=Theophany/Epiphany.[2] See also here.
Astvadz=Աստուած=God[3]
a =այա = a preposition
haytnootyoon = յայտնութիւն=Revelation[4]. 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)

Recent reverts

A Wall Street Journal opinion article doesn't compare to a reference work or to scholarly literature as a source. I read the original source and it has various problems. On top of that, it's being misrepresented here. No source that I am aware of says that the Epiphany was split from Christmas, by Pope Julius or by anyone else. The WSJ article doesn't mention Docetists. In fact, I assume it is referring to Arians, since Arian vs Catholic was the hot controversy of the fourth century. An Arian might or might not be a Docetist. Pandas and people (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Second edit war in two days. I don't care about the content, but this article is on my watch list and if this continues, I will report again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, I can't find any source or citation for this claim "The first recorded Christmas celebration was in Rome in 336." I would love to read more about this, and it seems this is also attributed to Pope Julius somehow, but everything I find is just another unsourced article, probably with everything using itself as citations. At the very least, these two claims should have "citation needed" added to them.Commanderk33n 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the WSJ doesn't compare to a scholarly work. Still it is strictly copyedited and worthy of "consideration."

The last paragraph of Pope Julius I contains the info about splitting the birth of Jesus (and not the Nativity) into two separate dates. I've amended that sentence in the article, and added a footnote, which it needed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Docetists said that Jesus only "appeared" to have a body, but didn't really. Arianist said he had a human body, but was not divine, by modern definition, inasmuch as He didn't exist prior his human birth. So the Arianists did not dispute his birth. Student7 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the video you added as a source. It's even worse than the WSJ article, little more than a compilation of urban legends. Saturnalia was a solstice festival? Please. More to the point, the video doesn't even mention Epiphany. (It's a concept above the level of the viewership they are aiming at.) Pandas and people (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

https://ehrmanblog.org/the-controversies-about-christ-arius-and-alexander/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't about the divinity of Jesus. It was all about the whether a certain Greek word should be written with an iota or not. The Arians said Jesus was of similar substance (homoioúsios) to that of God the father. The Catholics said, no, they aren't of similar substance. They are homooúsios. This used to be translated as "one in being." Since 2011, the official translation is "consubstantial."[5] Don't worry about getting this one right. The limited nature of human language makes the concept impossible to explain. Pandas and people (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Almost correct. What you have wrong is that there was no "Catholic" church at that point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Arian controversy is the original context in which the church came to be called "Catholic." It became, "One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church," as the Nicene Creed says -- and as the Arians disputed. Pandas and people (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking Pandas word for poor footnoting. Found a better one in Baylor.edu. I think this works, except might be better placed in the article. Student7 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring

This article has been around since 2001. I think some restructuring is in order. There are repetitions. Material is presented out of sequence.

Specifically, IMO, the reason for the new holiday should be presented first (heresy). Then the selection of December 25 - start with Quarto-decimals, leading (eventually) to the change by Pope Julius. Different dates for the Orthodox. A bit confusing because the Orthodox dates are sometimes Julian and slide into the Epiphany over the millennia!. I don't have suggestions after that point, but that bit of editing will take some work. I don't have the time right now. Leave me a note and I will eventually look back here. Thanks.

I don't do edit wars. If this is an "edit war" page, forget it! Student7 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Student7: Not to fear. If you put a {{under construction}} template on the article as your first edit (and remember to remove it when you're done) I don't think that you would be bothered. Alternately, you could make a copy of the article as it is now and modify it in your own sandbox and put into place when you're done. If you really want to avoid edit wars, you could ask for a review of your sandboxed version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas has a unique three-mass liturgy, which gave the priest three opportunities to denounce heresy. (Julius was a vigorous opponent of Arianism.) There is no reason to think that the feast was created to counter some group that questioned whether or not Jesus had actually been born. I think this is getting into WP:OR territory. NCE has a full-length article on Pope Julius, but it doesn't say anything about him splitting Christmas and Epiphany. Here is what it does say: "An anonymous author known as the CHRONOGRAHER of 354 recorded that Rome observed the birth date of Jesus on December 25, but indicates that the practice had been known since 336. This means that Julius was the first pope to celebrate Christmas on the now traditional day." Julius was pope from 337 to 352, according to the article. Pandas and people (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Inserted Baylor.edu footnote, as mentioned above. This says nothing about the use of the Nativity to combat Arianism. I don't doubt that Julian fought Arianism, however.

Thanks for the suggestion, Walter. I will be unable to do much between now and mid-January. Happy editing! Student7 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Date formats

Should the article date formats be in YMD only, MDY only, DMY only, or reverted back to December 2015 when there was both ?

--

Hi, Long story short back in December Kind Tennis Fan had converted the entire article to MDY[6] - There was no consensus for this nor was there any discussion, So having seen Walter Görlitz convert all dates to MDY I then had converted everything to YMD, Since then there's been a disagreement/edit war over this so I wanted to get a wider discussion as to what should be used or done,
I had attempted to revert back to Dec 2015 and readd all of the edits however it would've took forever and was way too much so I had self-reverted and decided to start an RFC, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to revert the article back to December 2015 where both date formats (DMY & YMD) were used however that would result in a loss of everyones edits, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the options you present reversion to when both were in use is the worst. MDY/DMY is always going to lead to factional infighting, both are pretty awful. I have kicked off a discussion at Use dmy dates#Visibility asking for a hatnote to be produced by the template, since as well as confusing editors these two styles confuse readers. YMD is the best of the options you provide. The one you haven't mentioned, that of spelling out the month in full, is the best of the lot. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I do MDY without really thinking about it. If someone else takes responsibility, it's all the same to me. It should be one way or the other, not restored to an earlier mixed format. Pandas and people (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martin, Perhaps I'm thinking of this in a different way to others but to me one format shouldn't take over another especially when both have been used for a good 5-6 years without any issues in this article, Unfortunately with this being an English site both Brits and Americans clash over various things (spellings, dates etc etc), Usually for American articles I would use MDY and British would be DMY however because this is a worldwide article I don't really see why one format should take over another especially when as I say both have been used for a good 5-6 years without issue,

It's not so much a "taking over" but of settling on one format so as not to confuse the reader. My favourite Wikiphrase is "remember WP:RF", which I fear is something that can get lost in discussions such as this. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree the reader always comes first here, But if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in "the wrong way" I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to (It's the exact same with Americans ie them seeing the dates in DMY and pobably wanting them changed), See having them as both would've kept both sides of the pond happy and I wonder if having these as YMD would also confuse the readers, It's a tough one, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In hindsight reverting back was and still is rather disruptive and I think keeping them in YMD is the best option as that way it stops this crap, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Keeping would be MDY not DMY. Sorry. And you're right, standardizing on a date format would stop this crap. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to have this article in MDY especially when most countries go by DMY anyway?!, Unless you can actually explain why MDY should be used in the article then I see no reason why it should remain and having as YMD stops this crap!, Having it as DMY or MDY just causes moronic issues like this. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There absolutely no reason to have this article move away from MDY format especially when most authors supported it at the time of selection. See. Two editors can make absolute statements. I can see that there is no way to sway your opinion away from DMY and even after an editor you called to the RfC gave you a reason and changed the date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The only reason no one objected is because no one knew and at the time I never knew either, Wrong - As you have been repeatedly told I don't want DMY in the article - Sure it would actually make sense if it was however having it as DMY would ignite this exact discussion which is why as you have been told I would prefer YMD, I haven't asked anyone to come here so that's utter bollocks for a start and to accuse me of CANVASSING is absolutely laughable!, Also just to clarify - I'm the one who has changed it to YMD and I'm the one who as of this morning has self reverted and changed it back to MDY, You have absolutely no reason as to why this should be in a completely different format other than "another editor done it" - Not really a compelling arguement. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Colossal shrug. I wish I had some brilliant insight to offer, but honestly, Santa is free to come down my chimney on 25 December or on December 25 or in the middle of the merry month of May, for all I care. Neither format bothers me in the slightest, and neither does a mixture in the same article—as long as there's consistency within a given sentence or, preferably, an entire paragraph. While consistency per se may be a net positive across various articles, complete consistency is unlikely to do more good than harm; there should always be room for exceptions. There's a lot of quiet date-format changing goes on, just as there are a lot of WP:ENGVAR-related spelling changes. Often it's ignorant (edit summary: "typo"), usually it's well meaning, and it really shouldn't be a big deal in articles lacking a regional focus. By the same token, if someone changes it back again, that shouldn't be a big deal either. If, by sheer numbers, speakers of American English are overwhelming international articles, that strikes me as both unfortunate and inevitable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Added: I will say this much more: the DMY format seems more logical, so I'm always glad to see it (and apply it) in an article. MDY is what many of us are used to, but tradition is rarely a good reason for intransigence. Probably beyond the scope of this non-centralized discussion, I know. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer for this. Personally, I vote for MDY. Grammarphile (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the article should be harmonized under one standard, and since it already is standarized MDY, we should keep it that way.--Adam in MO Talk 04:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue as ofcourse you're entitled to your opinions but just because one format was applied it doesn't mean it's correct ?, That's like me coming here and applying DMY ... I too would expect some crap for it (ignoring the accidental DMY-convert days ago), I hate to sound like a broken record but I don't see any policies that state "articles should be in one format" especially where the article is a worldwide thing and not just a british or american article, As I said I'm honestly not trying to argue at all I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why we should use one format over another "just because it was applied rightly or wrongly", –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR covers this, particularly at MOS:ARTCON. Commonality within an article is required, an international form is preferred ("Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English") but if there is no common ground settle on ONE format. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion between Dave & Walter

Davey's comment that "if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in 'the wrong way' I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to" is colossally ignorant, I'm sorry to say. 65 million in the UK could be confused. Add another approximately 25 million for Australia and 5 million for New Zealand. Canadians are familiar with both formats (but MDY is more common) while the population of the US, if they found DMY would leave about 325 million confused. That's three times the number. So your argument based on numbers doesn't work at all. Unless of course, you include the population of India, and then all bets are off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Finding (or at least trying to find) faults in every answer I make doesn't help you, I or this RFC, If you read my comment carefully I did say "if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in "the wrong way" I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to (It's the exact same with Americans ie them seeing the dates in DMY and probably wanting them changed)," - I'm not going to sit here and single handedly name every country that uses DMY or MDY however the point was readers of any nationality could be confused, I'm not going to argue with you for another week we'v already done that directly above. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC) I wasn't trying to find faults, simply pointing out that it's a flawed argument. And for the record, you refuse to accept that there is a date format that is applied even if it was applied incorrectly. You also have made it clear you won't accept any date other than DMY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Based on that assumption, WP:SNOWBALL is likely the best option and continue with the current format as applied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Wrong - As I've said above "I think keeping them in YMD is the best option as that way it stops this crap" ... I think that speaks for itself, SNOWBALL's irrelevant at this stage, Anywho I've collapsed this as we should let others have their say and not take up the RFC with our issues, Anyway have a great day. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Wrong - YMD is not the best option either as it's not common in prose, but we can certainly make all of the references use that date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment the article appears to use both UK and US varieties of spelling, so there doesn't seem an established Engvar, nor is there a close cultural connection to any English country. YMD/YDM seems like the worst option as being 'foreign' to everybody. DMY is standard for spoken UK English and letters, but is actually being widely replaced by MDY in 'press' English (news sources increasingly use it as standard). Why not embrace the season of goodwill (or toss a coin? or establish what the original Engvar was?) and just settle for one or the other, which if we wish to serve the max. number of readers would probably be MDY. It would upset me as a Brit to read Shakespeare/Churchill/Westminster articles written in US English, but Christmas? I couldn't give a FFFfffffff … …, nor should anyone else. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Religion and philosophy category? Hasn't anybody here read The Santa Delusion ?

Can't say I've ever seen YDM, it would be guaranteed to cause problems. The ISO standard of YMD seems logical, if unfamiliar. If you actually want to make it read easily and be informative to all readers simply spell out the month. 11/12/2012 is confusing, 11 December 2012 is not. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't do YMD in prose. Standardizing on spelling would also be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep existing. The Manual of style specifies that the entire article should be in a single format, preferably the one that has evolved. There is no better one, only different, equally inadequate alternatives, so why switch over? (Eventually this should be a user-switch allowing all users to see their preferred format; see Wikipedia:Date debate for discussion on this.) Clean Copy^talk 12:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)