Talk:Christmas

An event in this article is a December 25 selected anniversary and a January 7 selected anniversary

No mention of the actual origin of the date of Christmas?

Saturnalia was on December 17th, and although it extended to the 24th, by the Christian era it ended by the 22nd, at the latest; Natus Sol invictus was established after Christmas. These have as much to do with Christmas as Labor Day has to do with Rosh Hashanah. The real holiday that Christmas is based on is Jewish:

The 25th day of Kislev is the Feast of the Dedication. Kislev corresponds roughly to December (the Feast of the Dedication is the eighth day of Hannukah). It's the day that the ancient Jews (or at least those of the faction to which Jesus belonged) believed that the Spirit of God returned to dwell among God once more, in his holy temple. Jesus equated himself with the holy temple, so it was quite natural for early Christians to supplant the Feast of the Dedication with the nativity of Jesus.

But there's also this: It was believed by ancient Christians (and many Jews) that prophets died on the day that they were conceived. Jesus died on March 25th. Since the date of the commemoration of his death, Good Friday, changes from year to year according to Latin interpretations of the Hebrew lunar calendar, the date can take on its secondary significance: the date of Jesus' conception. (Incidentally, this is the Feast of the Annunciation, not the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which is the date Mary was conceived.) Exactly nine months from March 25th is December 25th.

Thus, there are two reasons for early Christians to suppose that Christ was born on December 25th, both of which are quite independent of any pagan festivals.

Geol

OK, so footnote 3 is a reference to an article by Dennis Bratcher on a Christian youth website. The trouble is that I could not find where that article says or supports the statement about Geol/Yule made in this entry. The statement is, I hurry to add, quite correct and rather copiously documented and pretty much universally accepted among researchers (so much so that one wonders if it really requires reference). A better reference might be the Online Etymology Dictionary entry found here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yule.

On a side note, I find rather amusing the lack of complaint about reference to Christian resource and inspirational sites in this article, given the voriferous debate that previously went on about whether the History Channel website could be considered a valid reference for Christmas subjects. TheCormac (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written and easily read the whole way through, no grammar or punctuation issues. b (MoS): Generally good, though I'd question including the etymology of the word "Christmas" in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Most information is referenced... there were a few possibly controversial statements that were not given inline citations (eg, "Misrule") b (citations to reliable sources): Good, though dead links need fixing. c (OR): None. The parts moved to Christmas/temp add lots to the article, though they are unsourced and possibly OR. It should, however, be a simple matter of google searching for sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects well. - There is still a recurring theme of editors believing the secular nature of Christmas has not been covered in enough detail. This is a major omission. b (focused): A few issues were not dealt with as in-depth as I would have expected (eg Santa Claus). While the main Santa page deals with this well, I found the information on this page rather sparse. For example, when describing the "image" of Santa Claus, it only states that by so-and-so date the image had evolved into the one we know today. What one? I presume this means fat guy with beard in red and white furry suit, but it's not stated. I'd also question why the "Green Chri$tma$" sentence is needed. I'm sure there have been many commentaries on the commercialisation of Christmas. Why is this one special? Removing poorly sourced yet relevant and probably accurate material just because its easier than tracking down sources is not a satisfactory result.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Some editors have expressed concern that the article is too focused on Christmas as a religious feast day, and skims over secular observance of the festival. I tend to agree with this - for better or worse, "Christmas" is celebrated in many ways and the secular "commercialised" way is quite widespread. Whilst the "Christmas Controversy" is mentioned breifly, it doesnt seem to be giving any weight to the secular celebration of Christmas. This is, I believe, the article's main weakness.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Fairly high traffic page, but most are either vandalism or relatively minor edits. No problem. Since the GA nomination, regular changes have been made which have not resulted in a clear consensus version.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All fine. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No problem, though I would have expected a picture of a fat guy in a furry red and white suit!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: It's mostly a good article, but the possible POV issue with the secular observance as well as the occasionally insufficient information makes me think this is a narrow fail. It is, however, pretty close, so I will ask for a second opinion before making a final grade. Yeti Hunter 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been on hold for some time now and the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. As such, the result is a fail. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article 2nd Opinion

I would agree that there are large issues to be addressed here, but providing a hold is appropriate to at least give the editors the opportunity to fix them before failing (this article doesn't meet any of the hard and fast quick-fail criteria in my view). Other issues include:

• Commenting on the above idea about the lead. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview of the entire article, and it is customarily required that the etymology be included therein.
• There is major inline citation work to be done, sections which are lacking - in part or entirely - in inline citations are: Regional customs and celebrations (esp. Social aspects and entertainment), and Arts and media. If these sections do not get inline cites, the article cannot be passed.
• I agree that the article focuses too much on Christmas as a religious holiday. It is pretty uncontroversial to point out that it is primarily a secular holiday rooted in religious traditions in many - if not most - developed countries. The article does feel imbalanced when reading it. It's indicative that the most-used sources are the Catholic Encyclopedia and a source on medieval Christmas. Of course, there's nothing you can do about that when speaking on the history of the holiday up until about the 20th century.

There's my two cents, please feel free to contact me for further advice. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GA hold editing. The unsourced and undisciplined sections have been removed. The lead has been re-written. The 'See also' cleaned up. There is balance now between the sub-sections now and a balance between the religious and secular. The Santa Claus section is in balance with the other sections. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious Still Dominates Secular

In my view, Christmas in the religious sense still dominates this article's content. Given the overwhelming (and increasing) influence of the secular holiday of Christmas to many modern Western societies, this seems inappropriate. I would argue that the article is far more religiously flavored than it has been in the past due in large measure to the dubious banishment to "Winter Festivals" of pre-Christian content. A review of the history tab suggests that attemtpts of people to enhance the non-liturgical and non-Christian parts of this article have been repeatedly excised through the years by those seeking to rewrite history to conform with their faith.

Given that the standard academic research on the topic (such as Nissenbaum, Schmidt, Connoly, and even Restad) make clear that modern secular Christmas is only tenuously connected to the Christian faith, it seems to me the reasonable response is to do what U.S. law essentially does and create two seperate articles - "Christmas (religious)" and "Christmas (secular)"

Such a solution would also allow for greater cultural variability. In my view the article now is pretty exclusively focused on Anglo-Saxon traditions and celebrations. TheCormac (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That would do nothing more than create two ultra-biased POV forks. We need to create one Christmas article that covers all relevant views without giving undue weight to anything. Discussion and consensus-building will work things out. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think you miss my point. It is simply reality to say that the word Christmas, like many words in English, has multiple meanings. It is a religious feast day for Christians, it is a civil holiday in several secular states (France, U.S., for instance), it is a non-demonational winter festival which amalgamates non-religious traditions and rituals, ancient and recent, from numerous cultures. Among the things amalgamated and borrowed for this last mentioned meaning has been the word "Christmas," about as emptied of religious content as "Satuday" or Thursday." The POV argument is really a false one. There are different Christmases sharing the same name and (usually, but not always) date, but with seperate, if sometimes interacting, histories. If you don't want to seperate them as entries (which is the usual Wiki practice in case such as this) we should at least begin the entry with a clearer delineation of the different meanings of the word. TheCormac (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the "fat red idol" is a Christian idea. Santa Claus, or St. Nicholas, is a Catholic saint. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion should dominate Secular

This holiday was created by Christianity, and it is supposed to celebrate the Birth of Christ. Not some fat idol in a red coat. This article should have pictures and symbols of Christianity everywhere, for it is a Christian holiday. The majority of this article should be about the religous and Christian meaning. Then, a small section for the secular part. CHRISTmass is about CHRIST, nothing else. All other celebrations and traditions of Christmas should be written all the way at the bottom of the page of the article, because it is unimportant and has no reference to Christ's Mass.

The picture at the beginning of the page should contain more themes of Christianity such as a REAL nativity scene (detailed painting) or a Baby Jesus. If the Jews get to have their own holiday, then so should us Christians. It is not right for Christmas to be dominated by secularism because that is not its real meaning.

I would propose create two article about Christmas, Secular Christmas, and Christmas.

Thank you all for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Director958 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See now, this is what I've been talking about. Here is a clearly devout Christian who wants a proper entry on a significant event in his religion's calendar. And why not? There can be little doubt, however, that there are legions of people (and I won't bother with the pointless squabbling over which side has more) who have the opposite view and think the article should be all about cultural Chirsimas, with only a small appendage on the religious feast day of the same name. Neither is right or wrong, they are just talking about two distinct things which happen, by historical accident if you will, to share the same name. Two entries is a good solution. Failing that, an entry that carefully defines the seperate meanings would be a real improvement. TheCormac (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas does not have Christian origins. It is a pagan holiday that was adopted by Christianity. Enigmaman (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Christmas doesn't relate to the birthday of Christ since the 25th December is not the correct date anyway for that event, but was chosen by the early church to usurp and replace a pagan event. Even the early church acknowledged at the time that this date was at least out of whack with any possible real birth date by at least one season, maybe two, when considered within the context of when the Roman census were held. There's numerous references. In theological terms Christmas is relatively unimportant compared to Easter according to the Archbishop of Canterbury said.Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems many of us agree about this, but a few religious zealots are making the article have a biased slant. Enigmaman (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Big uncited section

Even with these cuts big OR-ish trivia-type sections still lurk at the bottom of the article. Cut, move to talk, or cite ASAP.

Moved here: Talk:Christmas\temp

Please cite and return to the article. --SECisek 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed another big section that is completely unsourced and undisciplined. I've placed all the pruned sections in a temporary archive here. Talk:Christmas\temp Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wherefore art thou, Natalis Solis Invicti?

I haven't edited this article for awhile, although I did quite a bit on it last year. It seems to have undergone some major changes, mainly the removal of all the Pre-Christian Winter Festivals and other valuable information. I checked the talk pages, but I can't find where these changes were discussed. What happened? MightyAtom (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone must have removed it, possibly because of concerns that the article was getting too long. Personally I think the old version with reams of info on previous festivals would be better suited in the separate List of winter festivals article, with a link to there on this page, which is provided. The previous detailed list's length was ridiculous in proportion to the rest of the article, and while some more info could be added to "Pre-Christian winter festivals" it should only be another sentence or two linking to the main inspirations, e.g. Natalis.

Whether it's "valuable" info or not is really a personal judgement. I agree that it's interesting, but it's only tangentially relevant to this article. But a good idea would be to add relevant info in the "traditions" section, showing how current customs were inspired by the past. Brisvegas 09:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Following the good article review noted above, there was a flurry of edits (see the article history) making some quite dramatic changes to the article with no real discussion here. I noticed it too and was waiting for the pace to slow down a bit. I think the article as it was definitely needed some trimming, but I am not sure that everything that was cut should have been. - Eron^Talk 13:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. The trimming was done to unsourced text mostly. There was a problem with overall balance to the article but the text that was edited out was unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This bold edit, which removd the bulk of the content about pre-Christian festivals, deleted text which was in fact sourced. We can discuss if it was needed in the article or not, but it was fully referenced. - Eron^Talk 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary stated: "intro paragraph enough - all off topic as none of these revelers would have ever heard the word "Christmas".

I agree with Brisvegas, link to it, don't include it. It has nothing to do with "Christmas". What the article needs is more info on secular celebrations, not pagan events from 2,000+ years ago. -- SECisek (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the linkage between Saturnalia and Christmas is dubious and was developed by Puritans in England between 1630 to 1660 during the English Civil War. For political, religious and economic reasons, the Commonwealth government outlawed 'feasts' including Christmas. Arguements against Christmas were developed most strongly at this time in sermons and various Puritan / Commonwealth tracts. One of the favourite arguments was to link the Christmas feast with Saturnalia and thus imply that Christmas was not Christian but thoroughly pagan. This argument has appeared through the years in popular accounts of the history of Christmas. The connection is circumstantial and not causal. Saturnalia did occur around the time of Christmas but I don't believe any historic writer discusses the choosing of Dec 25 because the date is convenient in relation to Saturnalia: it is happenstance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, what's the relevance? The holiday was founded after Christmas.

...But about Yule?

The problem I have with this is that Yule (per Germanic paganism) actually has quite a lot to do with our modern conventions regarding Christmas, whereas Saturnalia doesn't. Most "traditional" aspects outside of the nativity scene are directly derived from the indigenous Germanic peoples - Santa Clause[1] leading the Wild Hunt, modern festivities regarding the Alpine Perchten[2], the ham[3], the tree[4] and numerous other cultural aspects left behind in various Germanic societies - such as England and subsequently the US. There are many parallels here and a lot of research has been done in this area. I think it would be wise to mention this in particular for the sake of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why it should be in the "traditions" section, so readers have a context. E.g. Several Christmas customs and traditions are derived from earlier pagan rituals. Among these are... (mention Yule log, ham, tree, etc.) Brisvegas 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the pre-Christian section may well have needed trimming; I am a bit concerned that with its complete excision some valuable content may have been lost. These traditions have influenced Christmas activities and possibly the date as well. The information provided above by Wassupwestcoast about Saturnalia and the Puritans is something that could enhance this article. How many people come here thinking that the two festivals are directly related? Why doesn't this article explain that they aren't? - Eron^Talk 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that pagan borrowings should be in the traditions section and not in the 'pre-Christian' section. The problem here is the concept of anachronism. In historical narrative, you shouldn't write as if events anticipate the future;especially using ideas from the future. People who celebrated Yule and Saturnalia did not do so in anticipation of Christians and Christmas. Rather, hundreds of years later, people who were Christians borrowed from the past because certain practices of the past had become familiar and comforting; ie. 'traditions'. I doubt any Christian borrowed Saturnalia practices except perhaps deliberately by university scholars when the study of Classics were at their zenith. But Yule, there is no doubt many traditions passed through the centuries. The other question about Saturnalia / Christmas should be developed in a section on the banning of Christmas which had a profound influence on the celebration in England and America. In England, roughly speaking Christmas festivities stopped in about 1650 and were not revived until about 1850. And, the article is correct in crediting Dickens for this. Prince Albert - Queen Victoria's consort- was likely the conduit of many germanic Yule customs back into England in the 1800s, like the Christmas tree. So, yea, a lot of stuff could be added to the Christmas article. The problem is simple: I have to go to the library and check 'Christmas' references when the Real World says that I best spend my library time checking other references. Hopefully, other contributing editors can fill in the holes in the article with sound research. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading the history section again, it is reasonably well balanced. In just a few sentences, it covers the necessary ground without unnecessary detail: see Wikipedia:The perfect article.

is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects.

The Saturnalia / Christmas and the Outlawing of Christmas topics could all be developed elsewhere. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that all that the pre-christian origins section is almost entirely speculative and in part contradicted by the content below it. There is no historical evidence for this supposed enticement. There is no historical evidence that Mithras or Ishtar had birthday celebrations at all, never mind on 25th Decemeber. There is no historical evidence for syncretism. Scrub the lot, in my opinion. PS The History Channel is not much of a source - now if someone could come up with the original historical source for this guff... --Dmottram (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the above info is mistaken. The 'birthday' of the Sol Invictus imported into Rome in the 3rd cent. AD was celebrated on December 25. Many Romans at the time associated the Sol Invictus with Mithras, another popular solar deity worshipped in an imperial cult imported from the East three centuries earlier (and before Christianity as well). Thus Mithras' birthday was celebrated on December 25. In the 4th cent. Constantine established December 25 as a Christian holiday to replace the old pagan holiday associated w/ Sol Invictus, and thus it became the 'birthday' of Jesus as it had been the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus/Mithras before. Thus, the History Channel is irrelevant in this discussion. It is a matter of studying imperial cults that precede the rise of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.100.152 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia dead?

I mean, come on—it's less than a month from Christmas yet no one is here discussing anything, and there isn't even much vandalism. Talk about different from last year... and the year before. Is the fad over?Steven Evens (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the same suspicions. Apparently, Wikipedia is more consulted than ever but the rate of constructive contributions seems to have hit a low. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this article protected last year like it is now? Looks like this article has been protected twice this month for vandalism. Wrad (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. It just struck me how funny it is that we're measuring wikihealth by vandalism levels. Wrad (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about vandalism levels, I'm talking about discussion. Of course there are always going to be idiots vandalising the Christmas pageSteven Evens (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas tv specials aqnd list of Xmas films

Who moved the list of Christmas films and TV specials? User:DanDud88 10:45, 30 November 2006 GMT.

Sextus Julius Africanus

The article states that Africanus popularized the idea that Christ was born on December 25, yet the article on Africanus states that he placed the date of Christ's birth at March 25, the traditional date. These need to be reconciled. Darguz Parsilvan 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pagan origins

There's a couple of things concerning it's pagan origins that this article needs to discuss: 1. Very little in this article discusses Christmas's origins before Christianity. This was a "Christianized" holiday like Easter and Halloween, yet the article only seems to briefly mention this. 2. Being a Christian holiday, there is nothing in the article discussing Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups which oppose celebrating the holiday due to its pagan ties.

I think both of these need to be brought up in the article. I would be happy to do so, but I don't know really where to put them. Squad51 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was gutted by Christian POV pushers for about the millionth time, and I have restored it yet again. The material I put back is factual, well-sourced, and extremely germaine to the history of the holiday. A plea to Christian editors - Please stop deleting facts that disagree with your personal beliefs; you're making a lot more work for those who maintain the standards of accuracy and completeness which are necessary to an encyclopedia. Doc Tropics 21:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right and this article makes no sense without the origins of the holiday. It's sourced and it needs to stay. While Saturnalia may not have much to do with it, Yule is certainly the most blatantly obvious influence on modern Christmas. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that some editors do not fully realize that the Saturnalia / Christmas argument is effectively Christian propaganda of the 17th Century. Far from being Christian POV to eliminate the text, it is historically accurate not to make the non-causal linkage. The linkage between Saturnalia and Christmas is dubious and was developed by Puritans in England between 1630 to 1660 during the English Civil War. For political, religious and economic reasons, the Commonwealth government outlawed 'feasts' including Christmas. Arguements against Christmas were developed most strongly at this time in sermons and various Puritan / Commonwealth tracts. One of the favourite arguments was to link the Christmas feast with Saturnalia and thus imply that Christmas was not Christian but thoroughly pagan. This argument has appeared through the years in popular accounts of the history of Christmas. The connection is circumstantial and not causal. Saturnalia did occur around the time of Christmas but I don't believe any historic writer discusses the choosing of Dec 25 because the date is convenient in relation to Saturnalia: it is happenstance. In short, I'm not pushing a Christian POV but eliminating a form of Christian propaganda that pitted one type of Christian against another. On the other hand, Christians did borrow heavily from Yule customs but it was a backwards borrowing. Yule did not evolve into Christmas. A lot of the borrowing was of the antiquarian / romantic 'looking back' of the 18th and 19th C, the same fad, for example, that gave rise to the Pre-Raphaelites or that of Goethe and Wagner. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all really great points, and if they can be referenced then they should be included in the article! However, when you use statements like "I believe...." and "One of the favorite arguments...." then it comes off as personal opinion more than facts. Even if the connection is incorrect, than that should be included in the article. So long as everything is referenced. Cheers!MightyAtom (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right MightyAtom. Adding further well-sourced information for the sake of completeness and clarity would be perfect. Anything that adds useful content to the article would be great. Doc Tropics 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Frank Tillman~~ Iwould like to enter the following link to the Christmas Article

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=4138 I think this article is very interesting would this be possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frtillman (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the protocol for adding information to an article, or for discussing it, but I think it's important to note the following: I believe that the point about the date for Christmas being chosen independent of Saturnalia is quite true, as these two articles can act as support: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535969/posts http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v furthermore, those two articles even go as far as to suggest that Saturnalia's date was set because of Christmas! An attempt by pagans to deChristianize the holiday as it were. However, I also think it's important to note that this is in fact a debate, not a clear right and wrong. This article touches on both sides of the issue: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/23/special_reports/religion/21_50_1412_22_04.txt :lekkin: (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Top Summary

The top summary doesn't even summarize 1/3 of the text in the main article. It just talks about the contemporary main celebration of winter and nothing of it's history or how it came to be. =\ I came here to see if I can verify somethings about Christmas and realized that not even this article has done that. I don't think it deserves a B rank just because of it's length. --199.227.86.10 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas as a secular holiday / celebration of the nativity sections

The sections "Christmas as a secular holiday" and "Christmas as a celebration of the nativity" need to be looked at. These sections make it seem as though Christmas is two separate holidays, whereby certain people would celebrate (A) and others (B). This is incorrect, as many people celebrate both the secular and less secular aspects of the holiday simultaneously. For instance, the birth of Jesus, though with its strong religious ties, is not necessarily a solely religious observation as historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth lived, thus he was at one point born, regardless of the circumstances of such. Many at Christmas, including myself, celebrate Jesus as a historical, notable character who deserves to be celebrated for his life accomplishments and legacy. This needs to be revised to some degree, and I will try to help with it. Steven Evens (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you here - albeit only in part. I agree that the options are actually either or both (or neither, come to that) and not 'choose one religious or secular.' But your suggestion that they are too split here is totally off base in my view. I think they are not delineated enough in this article. The problem is that there are secular traditional mid-winter festivals, full of customs and observances which have little or nothing (depending on what, specifically, we are talking about) to do with the Christian Nativity (Indeed, as people seem to never tire of pointing out, some of them even antedate that event.) but which have also come to be called Christmas in countries with long standing Christian majorities (and even a few now without). Your suggestion that there are "many" such as yourself in the world who use Christmas to celebrate the historical Jesus of Nazareth separate from the Christian faith is fascinating to me, but I'm afraid I'm deeply skeptical. Perhaps you can find some social science or public opinion research that suggests there to be a significant number of likeminded people in the world? I, for one, would appreciate learning about such an unexplored dimension of Christmas! TheCormac (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun / Son

I just made this edit to the Natalis Solis Invictus section. The recently added etymological information was fine, but I think it was superfluous. The only reason to note the lack of connection between the words Sun and son was the parenthetic addition (sun/Son) after the sentence "Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus." As these writers were not using modern English, there is no possibility that the connection they drew had anything to do with the specific words "sun" and "Son". This is made explicit in the quote from Cyprian which follows: "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born." The whole sun/son thing is a modern coincidence unrelated to the early church and doesn't belong in the article. - Eron^Talk 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

this article need to be scrapped and completely rewritten by a professional.

This article is as thorough a condemnation of Wikipedia as I have ever seen. Truely bloody awful piece of half-baked opinion and citations from magazine articles for Gods sake.

This article is almost complete bollocks from start to finish the citations are other misinformed repetitoons of commonly occuring myths about Christmas origins and the later history is still inaccurate. Dickens did not reinvent Christmas, for example. It had become unpopular having been censored entirely by the Commonwealth but was revived largely by Victoria and Albert as part and parcel of creating the Royal family mythos and by extension its worth as a family-orientated event.

It also has the worst aspects of Wikipedia in its core. False history, biases glaring, ignorance trumpeted as fact, thinly disguised tosh. God help us.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.2.2 (talk • contribs)

I also think this article suffers a lot from a lack of academic sources. Most all of its sources are news/web sources. Those are not really known for being very accurate. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible. Way too religion heavy and misrepresents the holiday. 24.5.188.169 (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article badly needs to be redone by an unbiased party. This was hijacked by Christians desperate to claim Christmas as their holiday. Enigmaman (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secularity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your other specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xmas was invented in 300 AD

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

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

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

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

The End of the Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nativity Scenes

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

Santa

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

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

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

A Helpful External Link

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

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Christmas

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

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

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

"Constantinian Origins" section a mess

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

Infobox picture

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

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

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

Minor mistake

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

Current Event tag

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

christmas is??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greek Orthodox world

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

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

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

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

Error in Christmas controversy section

I just wanted to point out a minor error:

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

Could anyone fix this error? Thank you!

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

First line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all Eastern Churches celebrate Christmas on January 7th

The text on the page (near the beginning) says: "The Eastern Orthodox church celebrates Christmas on January 7 which is December 25 in the Julian Calendar. The Greek Orthodox church does not recognize the Gregorian Calendar which was implemented by a Catholic Pope. Around the world, Christmas Day is celebrated on December 25. Christmas Eve is the preceding day, December 24."

However, should one go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Calendar and scroll down, one gets: "...the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963), and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do, 25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian (which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100)."

From what I know, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the second claim is correct: different Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on different days.

Someone please amend that on the front page of article "Christmas".

Thank you and happy holidays (if you're celebrating, if not all the best as well!)

that was corrected recently but a user has been editing it to the previous incorrect version today. I'll see what I can do. Enigmaman (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point - every-one celebrates Christmas on the same day - Dec 25. Only some churches use the OLD calendar (Julian) which maps to Jan 7. Please check your facts - you leave the impression that they have set Christmas on different days - the just use a different calendar. Bobanni (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone celebrates Christmas on Dec 25, but, as my experience says, most of the people who celebrate it using the old Julian calendar DO NOT KNOW or do not care about it at all and really think that Christmas is on Jan 7. And even more (as I heard from Russian Orthodox authorities on TV) this is the main reason why Russian church do not change the calendar - it would be extremely hard to explain the change to old and uneducated believers.Illarionov (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural status in post-soviet states

In communist days the cultural status of Christmas was shifted to New Year's Day in Russia and other countries. The main cultural holiday in Russia was Christmas before 1917 and it is so in the West but now the main winter holiday in Russia is New Year's day. And Christmas here is mainly religious holiday and does not have the same cultural value as in the West. I think the article should say about it. My English is not so good to do it myself. Illarionov (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I should say more about this shift. The Christmas Tree is now New Year's Tree. Christmas presents are New Year's presents. Ded Moroz (Santa Claus analog) is New Year's mascot. Even English Christmas songs like Jingle Bells are New Year's songs here in Russia. All Economics of Christmas are present here but they are New Year's economics. Illarionov (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

References: http://russian-crafts.com/customs/christmas.html http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=20456&cid=187&p=19.12.2007 http://www.cityvision2000.com/millenium/feature.htm http://wscsd.org/ejournal/spip.php?article176 Illarionov (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)