Talk:Christmas tree

Egyptian origins?

I've looked around and it seems that the origin of the christmas tree might be the Egyptian tradition of bringing palm fronds into the home during the winter solstice. Supposedly this tradition migrated to europe, where other tree leaves and branches were substituted for the palm fronds. I'm not sure how this ties in with the germanic origins mentioned in the article. If no one objects, I'll add this tidbit about egypt. Zoffoperskof 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is there a link to a botanical reference to the Christmas tree, so despite looking for the apt' place to discuss this have used this heading. Perhaps I can be contacted for future discussion on this sub-subject. The Xmas tree is traditionally Picea Abies, but I was wondering if there's a different use of similar species in different mainly european countries? Or if due to economic reasons, the Picea is offers less of a return and doesn't look as 'trendy' these days. Steve DuboisSteve Dubois 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nordmann Fir is popular in Great Britain from what I understand, at least for use as a Christmas tree. Canada and the U.S. have a variety of popular species which are cultivated for use as Christmas trees. I have been working on just this topic lately, see Christmas tree cultivation to start. :)IvoShandor 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas ball

Another common Christmas decoration is a "Christmas ball", a reflecting sphere of thin metal-coated glass, working as a reducing wide-angle mirror. I deleted this because it's not about Christmas trees. Perhaps for a more general entry on Christmas decorations or festive decor? Wetman 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Trinity triangle

According to one legend, Saint Boniface attempted to introduce the idea of trinity to the pagan tribes using the Cone-shaped evergreen trees because of their triangular appearance. This isn't a genuine legend in the vita of Boniface, though efforts must have been made to "christianize" the symbolic fir and pine somehow. The "Trinity triangle" doesn't sound very likely, does it. I left it in the entry while we try to focus this statement. Wetman 00:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How real is the supposed pagan origin?

According to the German Wikipedia entry, the first Christmas tree was erected in 1605 in Strasbourg (now France, but the city's culture was mostly southern German back then) and this was many centuries after paganism ended in Europe, and even Martin Luther was already dead for decades by then. How much of the info on pagan origins in this article is well-founded, and how much is just speculation? 82.83.135.95 17:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the pagan ways did not disappear at once with the arrival of Christianity. Nobody knows when Jesus was born. It was a conscious lie from the church's side that he was born on the midwinter solstice in order to make a pagan festivity Christian. Moreover, it is a fact that evergreens were used to decorate homes in the Germanic countries since pagan times. If the first Christmas tree was erected in Strasbourg it only means that the Strasburgers already had the concept, but that no documentation of a previous Christmas tree has survived.

Is the connection possible? - Yes. Is the connection possible to prove? -No. The important question is whether the pagan tradition is relevant. I think it is.--Wiglaf 17:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

it is probably true that there is a pagan connection. It is, however, indirect. Unlike Carnival the tradition did not survive in remote or rural areas, as you would expect from a genuinely pagan tradition, but it became current in urban, burgeois circles in the late 16th century. I think the history section is fair, except for :

The tradition of hanging decorations (representing fruit or gifts) on the trees is very old, with some early reports coming from the Alsace-Lorraine upper Rhine region

because the first report is from Bremen, 1570, and very old is suggestive of much greater age. dab (ᛏ) 13:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One wonders if the origin of presents under the tree may have been an offering to the roving land-mammals to keep them away from early-human-ancestry treedwellers.

I hope I have not been all to bold. Please do review my edit. Here is my source: [1] (German language NZZ, the article will only be online for one month, and then until the google cache expires). dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

D

No, I think you have improved the page.--Wiglaf 22:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about proof from the Christian bible itself? Jeremiah 10:3-4 "For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an ax by the hands of an artisan people deck it with silver and gold they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move."

No, that's about making an 'idol' (a kind of statue) out of a tree. 'They cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel'(NIV) Elephx4 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the alleged pagan origin of Christmas tree just a pathetic attempt atheists use to explain why they also use the Christmas tree? If the first historical Christmas tree is from the early modern age I wonder on what historical document or other sources is the pagan origin theory based. 85.135.224.153 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe atheists use Christmas trees, you're confused. Шизомби (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Yeah. How is it inside the box anyway? --IvoShandor (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Lichtfest," which was unsourced. I hunted around for an hour or two on Google Books, Google Scholar, German Wikipedia, and the .edu domain field, and could find no scholarly reference to any pre-Christian Germanic festival known as Lichtfest. I also found and added the citation from Chambers, though I'm not sure we should be citing him as a reliable source. In general, the pagan and medieval sections of the article still present a lot of unsourced and speculative statements; I hope other editors will help sort out the wheat from the tares and locate more sources. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have tagged the article with {{morereferences}}. Hopefully as people drop in here they will add references. The article needs further verification.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Viking

This text about the sacrifice can only origin from Adam of Bremen? Adam does certainly not use the term viking when he speaks about the sacrifies in Uppsala, but in his books he speaks exactly about vikings in south sweden, and he says they vikings were pirats, nothing else. This is an error, in my opinion. Dan Koehl 12:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After almost one month, theres no source for the mentioned viking kings in the article, so I remove the term, of above reasons. Dan Koehl 05:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Query

Posted by the photo by User:Rebroad: (What is the relevance of it being in Germany?)
Reply: see the first sentence at Christmas tree#Natural trees about differing preferences between Europe and North America (and also that it has candles, not electric lights; candles are still widely used in Europe) - MPF 22:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square Tree

http://www.norway.org.uk/culture/christmastree.htm says that the gift is from the City of Oslo not Bergen. IVoteTurkey 10:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely Oslo on http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/trafalgar_square/xmas.jsp it says the Mayor of Oslo attends the ceremony. I'll change the article. IVoteTurkey

Ignore that - the article was referring to the tree in Newcastle not London. IVoteTurkey

Academic definition

For students, to Christmas tree a test (specifically a computer-graded multiple choice test) is to fill in the answer sheet randomly, or in such a way as to form a design. Reasons for Christmas treeing a test include boredom, rebellion, and desperation (for students who are not prepared for the test). The name (an example of "verbing") comes from one popular pattern, which resembles a Christmas tree.

I have never seen this usage of the term (is it an obscure regional use?). Can anyone supply a source? jdb ❋ (talk) 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secular symbol?

There has been a lot of controversy lately - you see some every year - over people putting up Christmas decorations and trees in public places, like libraries. Someone will come in and complain at the lack of Menorah or other holiday symbols, as to equally represent all religions (or at least all major religions, since it would be extremely difficult to represent every religion). The person responsible will argue back that a Christmas tree is a secular symbol, devoid of religious significance, and is a symbol of "the holidays." I personally believe that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol, but others argue that it's not necessary to have a tree to celebrate Christmas and it has no relation to the birth of Christ (not like a Menorah's significance and relation to the cleansing of the temple). I think this argument should be covered somewhere in the article. LockeShocke 00:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

however..... they do often have menorahs in hospitals around the holidays

The Christmas tree in no way is religious. It is totally a pagen ritual fused into Christianity by the early church. First of all, Jesus was not born in December. In Luke 2:8-20 it talks about angels appearing tho the sheppards in the field. The only time the sheppards would be in the field at NIGHT with their flocks is in the spring or autumn. It would be way too cold in December in Isreal. But all you have to do is explore the history of Christmas on the net to discover it has pagen beginnings.

Christmas itself is a joke. Yes, Christians should share the word with others at this time, give to the poor and generally just be helpful. A true Christina does this 365 days a year. But this holiday is not spiritual. I mean get real...how does a TREE represent Christ. Um..it doesn't. It's only tradition. In Mark 7:8 it talks about people not following Gods will but following the traditions of men. Jesus was the only perfect person. The bible is THE word of God. Don't follow non-biblical traditions that were made up by men. The whole Christmas season is made up by men. It's for selling and buying only. A tree is a pagen object that represents 'rebirth', the ornaments represent 'planets' which the pagens worshipped. If your a Christian who thinks Christmas is a great holiday that brings Christ into peoples home your delusional. Read your bible. Pray. Explore what Gods will is in your life. He wants us to SEPARATE ourselves from secular things. In 1 Peter 2:4-12 it tells us to not associate ourselves with worldly things. There is nothing more worldly and secular and pagen than Christmas my friends.

My favorite verse reads:

<<removed>>

I removed your Bible verse. why? I do not think this is the appropriate venue for you to preach, I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians will correct me if I have stepped over the line here. --203.55.211.33 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod and the Christmas tree

There are some people who believe that the Christmas tree is tied to Nimrod (king) and his death, as glorified by Semiramis. Is there any way this can be incorporated into the article? --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pleasant River Tree Farm

The information attributed to Pleasant River Tree Farm is not unique to that source. I suspect websites of Cooperative extension services could replace this blatant promotion. Better yet, a copyright-free version of information common to multiple sites could replace this. 66.167.253.252 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC).

Excellent idea, go ahead - MPF 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Mts

"(outside much of the Rockies< !--need a source for this-->)" - I've heard similar, with the reason given being that in the area, trees can be cut relatively freely for personal use from public lands so there is no market for commercially-grown trees that have to be paid for. I don't have a published source for that, though. - MPF 10:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis

Is the recently added Cannabis as Christmas tree section WP:V? How important to the overall article is it to make this connection? Does it rate a picture of its own? Would a link to Cannabis (spiritual use) be sufficient? I'm just curious as to what others think. (and will put a pointer to this question on Whig's talk page)... ++Lar 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant, and would be strongly inclined to remove it - MPF 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The substantial similarity of appearance and significance to the spiritual use of cannabis in early Christianity (by some accounts) merits inclusion, and the picture illustrates this quite well, I think. While it may be argued that extended discussion should primarily be moved to Cannabis (spiritual use) (and I'd agree), historical mention here is almost necessary. Controversial, sure. It is in any case certainly not WP:V. Whig 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cannabis is identified as the tree of life by some Christians and by all Rastafari, and perhaps significantly is also considered by some to be the Eucharist. The typical Christmas tree resembles a fully grown cannabis plant" - two sentences; the first has no relevance to Christmas trees (which as the article indicates, were first used in northern Europe, i.e., well away from cannabis-growing areas); and the second, a pure coincidence - the same could be said of thousands of other plants. Sorry, but I can't see its relevance to this page at all. - MPF 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have two concerns, one is relevance to THIS page (as opposed to a page on christmas rituals, traditions, celebration mechanisms, etc.)... as MPF says, there may be thousands of plants that happen to look like a christmas tree (and, tangentially, when I was younger, I used to play the "hey that plant looks like a pot plant!!! game) but that doesn't mean we should single one out, or that we should provide a list of all of them here. The other concern is that it would need to cite some references. Whig, you asserted verifiabiilty (or did you actually mean to say it is NOT verifiable?) but it might help if you cited references. I (as an editor, nothing more) agree with the decision of user talk:143.231.249.141 (was that you, MPF? perhaps not, long contribution record Special:Contributions/143.231.249.141 there...) to edit the content out. ++Lar 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not me, though I too agree; going by the talk page, it seems to be someone at the US House of Representatives - MPF 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Balsam Fir

Balsam Fir seems a natural to include in the list of firs for North America... it was the tree we always sought out. I see someone removed it, but am not sure why. ++Lar 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd suspect vandalism. I've restored it - MPF 12:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hanging Slaves

From the page:

Among early Germanic tribes the Yule tradition was celebrated by sacrificing male animals, and slaves, by suspending them on the branches of trees.

Do they really hang slaves to celebrate Christmas? 61.94.149.116 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My view: at this time of year, lots of people might be adding things that are not as well sourced as they could be... I'd revert everything that didn't have a cite, or is from someone with no history of editing the article in a positive way (said by someone with almost no history of editing the article)... the history has the info and it can be put back in later if needed. So I'd revert this. IMHO as I said. ++Lar 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the histories that described such sacrifices are now know to be propaganda by Roman and early Christian historians. There are "historical" records that attibute human sacrafice to Druids and canabalism to Christians. I think that those entries should note that and provide cite. --Wubby 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Artificial Trees

I'm just curious where the "seventy percent of trees in the United States are artificial" statistic comes from? i'm suspicious of its accuracy, and there's no citation. thanks.

Usage Controversy

"A full study of the passage shows that the people would cut down a tree and work it with a chisel to engrave an image in it. They would also carry it from place to place as an object to be feared and worshipped. The only consistancies with Christmas tree customs seem to be that both are made of wood and both are decorated. It would be similar to comparing Christmas trees to armoires."

This strikes me as needlessly insulting to those Christians who follow the KJV only, or who for other reasons interpret these verses as a ban on Christmas trees (I am not one of them). I did tone down one of the other statements in this section about the "obvious" meaning of these verses to "more explicitly," since "obvious" is usually only subjectively obvious when it comes to interpreting the bible. The consistencies with Christmas trees are more than what is stated above: "they cut a tree out of the forest," it is fixed upright with a stand "so it will not totter," and traditionally decorated specifically with silver and gold (as in the Christmas song "Silver and Gold"), and they don't talk (except for novelty Christmas trees). The differences are that the ancient pagan trees were engraved somehow, and that they were carried. Since Christmas trees don't walk and must be carried also, this is really only a difference if the pagan trees were carried as part of a ritual (the verses do not explicitly state so, though this might be inferred), since I know of no ritual involving a Christmas tree being carried. Also, the verses do not explicitly state that the idols such as pagan trees were feared by the pagans (they may well have been, but these verses do not plainly say so), but rather that those following the guidance of the Book of Jeremiah should not fear the idols. In any case, these similarities and differences between pagan trees and Christmas trees do not set them as far apart as Christmas trees and armoires, so that comparison is not similar as stated; I am going to remove that last sentence, which doesn't seem in keeping with neutral point of view. Should the above paragraph be deleted, or just edited to make its point without being snarky (as I admit to some degree, I am being here)? Schizombie 02:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My view on this is that this section about the controversy is starting to overtop the rest of the article, at least to some degree. If there were a way to describe the controversy more succinctly without going into details that might be good. Perhaps a separate article is in order for the additional detail? (your information is valuable, though!) ++Lar 15:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, a separate article is perhaps a good idea. The title is perhaps not the most appropriate either, I suppose. The "name controversy" (holiday tree or christmas tree) is perhaps well-described, but I'm not sure "usage controversy" is quite accurate. Those Christians who oppose the usage of Christmas trees are quite adamant about not having them, while the majority of Christians who either have or support Christmas trees feel quite happy with their choice. However, these two sides don't seem to be actively engaged with each other, and it doesn't seem to be a public debate as with the name controversy. Schizombie 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Any idea what the bit about the Rood is doing in the usage controversy section? It doesn't sound controversial. Schizombie 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the tags on this section (NPOV and Unreferenced tags), I reviewed it and reworked it. Firstly, an overview article on the Christmas tree is not the place to argue over translations of scripture; if you want an in-depth article about the controversy on use of the Christmas tree, then by all means do so, but then please find some more references and don't introduce original work on the topic or your own opinions. What i did was take the NIV version passage. I also confirmed independently by searching discussion sites that this is indeed a recurring topic in Bible study circles, however it seems more of an urban myth than an actual theological position - I could not find any authority asserting that this passage was a scipture basis for not having christmas trees. There are, however, religious authorities that assert that Christmas should not be celebrated the way we celebrate it, but that does not belong to a controversy section on Christmas trees, but rather in the Christmas controversy article. I will move some of those comments there, to the extent that they are not already covered. Note also that the original text in this subsection I have for now left as a comment in the section per se, in case any other editor disagrees with my edits or wants to make sure I didn't cut too much. --Psm 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Organics

Saying "Organically grown Christmas trees are available, and are better for the environment." seems POV to me. It may be widely held to be true but it is not necessarily a fact, is it? I don't want to start a POV war so I just mention it here... user:MPF's edits generally rock! (although I'm guessing MPF is from the commonwealth? Was this article started in British English? A scan through the first few edits was inconclusive...)? ++Lar 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been well established from extensive controlled experiments that organic crops generally are better for the environment, with higher populations of wild plants, insects, birds, etc., than intensive crops sprayed with various biocides (fairly obvious, actually!); whether this has been specifically tested for christmas trees or not I don't know, but it is fairly safe to presume so. An organic christmas tree plantation will have natural vegetation between the trees, rich in flowers, which will attract insects and birds, etc; this won't be present in an intensively grown plantation - MPF 10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked it, see what you think. Revert if it really doesn't work for you. ++Lar 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice improvement, thanks - MPF 18:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Controversy

Someone added a note trying to establish when Christmas trees were first referred to as holiday trees, which may be a good thing. There's an older reference in, of all places, Up Yours : Guide To Advanced Revenge Techniques by George Hayduke (1982). The oldest reference I found (and I didn't look long): "Scented acres of holiday trees, prickly-leafed holly." - Truman Capote's story "A Christmas Memory" from, I believe, 1956. Although that reference is not to a public Christmas tree being referred to as a holiday tree, it still might be of some note? Schizombie 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit converted "alleged War on Christmas" to simply "War on Christmas." Since the existance of a War on Christmas depends upon one's own POV, what's the best way of referring to it here? I would have thought "alleged" held the middle ground between saying "bogus War on Christmas" and "War on Christmas"? Schizombie 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Paper/Tabloid

I changed tabloid back to paper in the "History" section. Tabloid is sometimes viewed as pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't hurt my feelings. I went back and read through it again, and felt tabloid was more accurate; however, since you were one of the principal creators of this very fine article - and wanted "paper"- I said fine, no problema.Hokeman 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange layout

At the point in the article as this shows

<< Modern trees

The first modern artificial Christmas trees were produced by companies which made brushes. They were made the same way, using animal hair (mainly pig bristles) and later plastic bristles, dyed ... >>>

after and partially covering the test at 'were' [at least on my browser] there is [edit] [edit]. What that is I do not know, but maybe the [edit] for sections in that area, screwed up by the image placement??? Can an editor fix??? --Dumarest 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinsel/offal

I'd read somewhere that the tinsel/garlands on a Christmas tree originated in an ancient tradition in which offal, particularly intestines, were wrapped in the branches of trees during the winter festival. I've tried Google, but all it brings up is pages about animals eating tinsel, and getting it caught in their guts. Kelvingreen 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tree in Rio de Janeiro

What about the Christmas Tree in the Lagoa [Lagoon] Rodrigo de Freitas? It is 27 storeys high... I am sure it is worth mentioning?

NPOV issue

The author's interpretation of the Scripture from Jeremiah (which rests all of its weight on the particular translation of the Bible he chose) is stated as if it were fact, and leaves no room for any alternate interpretation/point of view. It reads like a Bible commentary and doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Braves27 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone else think that the main picture looks like it's upside down, and glued to the ceiling? It confused me a lot at first. Just a random, completely irrelevant opinion.-Babylon pride 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain it's not upside down, but it may well be attached to the ceiling. The ceiling fixture above it may or may not be coincidental. I know I've seen something like that ceiling thing before in Victorian-era homes, but I don't know whether it was decorative, or a gas fixture, or something else. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It just looks weird because of the ceiling fixture. I thought it was a base at first glance.-Babylon pride 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, its a hole from which a chandelier is raised and lowered. in this case the chandelier has been removed and the top of the tree is sticking up inside the hole.75.57.148.86 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Szaloncukor (parlour candy)

I think szaloncukor should be mentioned in the section about Christmas tree decorations. --89.133.240.82 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin on NPR's Says You!

Today, the topic of the origin of Christmas trees was a topic on Says You!. There were two mentions, only one of which is mentioned here. The one not mentioned is a tradition from Riga that began in 1510. The one mentioned was Saint Boniface. --☑ SamuelWantman 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's origi's aren't Christian.

What about the old Pagan ritual of lighting candles on trees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

the "roots" section reeks of WP:SYN, mixing origin legends with random comparanda of "plant decorations in winter", "plants and paganism" etc. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

stripped Christmas tree as a Christian cross?

What does "Some churches use the same stripped Christmas tree as a Christian cross at Easter" mean? A Christmas tree doesn't resemble a cross. Шизомби (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

fir trees "hung from ceilings"

This is highly dubious. Hewitt (2007)[2] has

by the 12th century, the Fir tree [of Boniface's] was being hung, upside down, from ceilings

compare to this Collins (2003) [3]

In the seventh century ... [Boniface legend] ... Five centuries later ... evergreen trees were hung from ceilings

It looks like Hewitt had Collins in front of him, and calculated 7+5 in order to come up with his "by the 12th century" date. Of course, both of these books are popular publications of the "last minute Christmas gift" variety and neither cites any kind of reference. Here (Brown 2005) is another repetition of the same stuff in a similar publication. So what is the source for this Boniface legend, and what is the source for this "evergreen trees hung from ceilings in the 12th century" thing? --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hanging people from trees

Somebody postet something about hanging people from the trees to resemble icicles in the 70s, and that the practice was discontinued in the 70s due to the deaths of millions. I got rid of that, but I'm uncertain what the text originally read ... Might be something to do with using plastic tinsel and it being a fire hazard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.237.207 (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Artificial trees

I noticed that much of the artificial trees section is unreferenced. I have been working on some stuff, first I did Aluminum Christmas tree, came here and separated it out into its own section, writing a referenced graf I summarized from the newly created main article. I am currently working on a broader "parent article" on artificial Christmas trees, I have it my user space. My thought is to come here and rewrite the artificial trees section, perhaps dropping the subsections in favor of a three paragraph section (referenced) summarizing the new main article. The problem is there is some information here that I either don't have, or haven't found references for, however, the information seems useful and I was hoping it could be referenced, I could then add it to my new article.

Since this is a pretty substantial content change I wanted to drop a note here first. I do, however, think that it will be beneficial to the article, which I am certain has seen an uptick in traffic and will probably continue to right up through the end of the holiday season. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should merge Aluminium Trees into your own article and that the main article should be Artificial Trees. -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

The article should mention the ancient theory that claims that the Christmas trees are supposed to represent the Tree of Life, modeled on the Holy Trinity. This is the same kind of theory that says that the Irish clover also represents the divine mystery. 69.157.229.14 (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Saint Boniface? See Saint Boniface#Legends. If so, my searches, including Google Scholar and Google Books didn't turned up any reliable references, only 3 informal articles:

• http://www.english.sariepaul.com/downloads/2007.12.03/2007.12.03%20WKLYacty.pdf
• http://www.christmasarchives.com/trees.html
• http://www.crediton.co.uk/tourism/boniface_crediton.html

If you find better sources you are welcome to edit the article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

australian Christmas trees

I'm dubious of the use of sheoaks (allo-)casuarina as Christmas trees - the decorations would all slide off. I've certainly never seen one used that way. I have seen murray pine used, but by far the dominant choice in southern australa is radiata pine (given it is a pest weed, cutting the babies from native bush is actually helpful). Albany woolly bush is regularly sold as a perennial Christmas tree. --Jaded-view (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)