Talk:Christmas

Language Bias

I object to the bias in the following sentence:

"According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today."

It is not for a Wikipedia article to make a judgment on what a "true Christian" is. The cited source does not imply the "some who later claimed to be" language and stating that it does is dishonest. I would also like to note that this paragraph seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a Jehovah's Witness publication. I suggest the statement be evaluated and changed to more accurately reflect the cited source and the "some who later claimed to be Christian" phrase be replaced with something more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.231 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes, part 94

Jesus's birth, not Jesus' birth. Unless Christmas is now the celebration of the birth of several people called Jesu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.209.81 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, please change it back. There are a few ancient historical figures that use s-apostrophe for their possessive case, and Jesus is one of them. I think most of the other ones are Greek philosophers. --76.69.131.175 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The anon is right. I couldn't find it in the style guide, but the article apostrophe discusses the usage. I'm changing it back. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

In the "Decorations"picknels section, it says large decorations such as illuminated sleighs and snowmen and outdoor lights only appear in Europe to a lesser extent than in other parts of the world. Speaking as someone from the UK, this is incorrect as nearly every house has some form of outdoor Christmas lights and large decorations. I am unable to edit the page because of its semi-protection, but I believe that part of it needs to be changed. After eight mints are a traditional snack.

I will look at it and make changes if neccesary Αδελφος (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Greek (χ) chi has been used as an abbreviation since Constantine's Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The practice began long before the 16th c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.180.104 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also inaccurate that the term Santa Claus is only used in North America, Australia and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.241.214 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While the phrasing hadn't included the word "only", it (evidently) could have been read as if this were implied. I've made a general attempt to broaden the possibilities, but if you know of a particular place that might deserve mention, please feel free to suggest it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Omission

This article seems to omit a great deal of relevant information regarding worldwide secular observance practices; namely, the shift of Christmas in developed nations from a strictly religious holiday to a holiday based on a tradition of consumerism. The current article pays only a small tribute to the economic significance of the celebration, despite widespread commercialization and noteworthy analysis of such practices.

I scanned through the talk pages, and the word "consumerism" is mentioned not once, even though the increasing secularization of developed societies has rendered standard Christmas observance to be a widely practiced ritual of buying.

The consumption rituals associated with the observance of Christmas deserve some mention in the article, along with a link to the article on consumerism. Readers looking for information on typical Christmas observances should be presented with a balanced view of the modern Christmas ritual, along with links to articles explaining the social dynamics of consumerism.

This should be discussed here on the talk page before insertion, since any edits to the page without prior consensus are sure to spark controversy. Stevenm55 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the detail about Christmas having become a largely consumerist-driven holiday is missing sorely from the article. I think it even merits mention in the opening paragraph, because it really is one of the defining aspects of Christmas as we celebrate it today (especially in Western, secularizing countries). We're going to need some reliable sources documenting the consumerist-driven shift, with at least a few off-Internet sources being a good idea as well. I've done a minor rearrangement of the intro. paragraph already, and I think we can stick in a sentence or two about the consumerist shift either between the second and third or the third and fourth sentences. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You both make excellent points about the consumerism and apparently secular nature of this holiday. The problem is that I think you (and many others) imagine that at some point, people somehow understood the "true" meaning of Christmas, but we lost that meaning some time after the industrial revolution of Western civilizations at which time, Christmas bacame about presents and shoppping. This is simply not true. Here is a general breakdown of the history: long before Christ's birth, most agrarian civilizations in the Northern hemisphere celebrated the winter solstice (or gods representing the sun) through feasts and other traditions (decorated trees, yule logs, wreaths, etc). Christianity largely ignored these celebrations until proto-orthodox christianity began to emerge in the first few centuries of the Common Era. These early Christian churches denounced these winter celebrations as pagan. Nevertheless, Christian leaders could not stop these celebrations as they were so deeply ingrained in the cultures of these civilizations. Christianity wrestled with this issue for centuries. Should they embrace the holiday, but give it a Christian twist or should they condemn it all together? For centuries (and maybe still today) the debate continued. In the United States, Christmas celebrations did not become ingrained in the culture until about 120-150 years ago. What helped spark this renewed interest? Retailers, for the most part. The holiday as we know it today, was developed as a retail marketing campaign that capitalized on long-standing traditions. Where did Rudolph the Red Nosed Reigndeer come from? Who introduced the concept of Santa to the masses? When did gift-giving (and of course shoppinf) become popular and who pushed this tradition? The answer is that retailers, not Christ or Christianity, influenced this cultural phenomenon. I don't mean to discredit the importance of Christ's birth, but I do mean to say that Christ's existence has little to do with Christmas (past or present). Even in the behavior of true Christians, you will find that Christ only plays a part of a small percentage of their Christmas behaviors. It's really a fascinating story, but most people don't realize from where modern Christmas emerged. I think that's the story we should tell on Wikipedia rather than concoct some story about how the true meaning of the holiday was lost when some retailers and non-christians declared a war on the true meaning of Christmas. It's a hybrid holiday with strong secular roots and it was only recently named after Christ to appease Christian leaders who otherwise opposed these pagan holiday traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the history of Christmas is certainly nowhere near black-and-white. From what we know through various sources, the actual holiday named "Christmas" is the commemoration of the birth of Jesus (as sanctioned by the Catholic Church), but the date of December 25 was likely chosen to correspond with either the winter solstice or another pagan festival from the last centuries BC or first centuries CE. There is no direct evidence to suggest that any elements from these festivals themselves were incorporated into the celebrations of Christmas from the beginning, but it seems likely, as Christian leaders of the time were very likely trying to Christianize a pagan holiday to help convert pagans of the time. But Christmas itself is not a "pagan" holiday, because it is a totally separately-named and sanctioned holiday (done so, again, by the Roman Catholic Church). As for modern (19th/20th century) commercialization, you're right, it was retailers that pushed for this and also Santa is believed to have originated in 19th century American media (as mentioned in the intro. of the article). We certainly should be incorporating more about this modern commercialization, but we can't be adding any original research to the article. This means we can't say Christmas is a pagan holiday, we can't say the modern gift-giving and other aspects were all instigated by retailers, because there are no sources to confirm this. The exact origin of Christmas gift-giving, etc., may seem obvious as having been retailer-driven, but the true origin remains disputed and thus unknown. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point (you make some good ones) but historians generally do not feel that the origin of Christmas is up for dispute. In addition to cannonical documents, many other early church writings (letters, manuscripts, etc) clearly document the debate among early church leaders as well as the existence of these winter traditions before the Common Era. I guess my point is this, you can't change the name of a pagan holiday and then say it is somehow a new and separate holiday. For example, if we changed Halloween to Christian-ween and then claim that the holiday is meant to celebrate the baptism of Christ, it's not really a new Christian holiday. This is especially true if 90% of the behaviors and customs of this "new" holiday still mirror those of the original halloween. This holiday hijacking would be made worse if people started saying that we need to get back to the "true" meaning of the holiday as if it were always about Christ's baptism rather than costumes and candy. I don't propose changing the article based on this conversation, but it would make me more comfortable with the content if these historical points were considered as well as the counter view that the original and pure version of Christmas has been somehow been tarnished by consumerism and secular behaviors/customs. Perhaps this discussion really belongs on the Christmas Controversy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The so-called pagan "origin" of Christmas is only modern supposition and theorising, for which no solid evidence exists. Practically every day of the year was a pagan festival of some sort, so whatever date was chosen to celebrate Christ's birth, someone could say it was a pagan festival. The dates of Christmnas (Dec 25th) and The Annunciation (March 25th) correlate by the necessary 9 months - and this is the most likely origin of the dating. Doubtless some pagan habits of the winter season (Yule log etc) were adopted and christianised by ordinary people, but this does not make the festival a pagan one. Also the wide adoption of Christmas with very variable customs across the Christian world from Egypt to Scandinavia, Russia to Spain, indicates that there was a pure Christmas long before US shopkeepers cottoned on to it. Xandar 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"so-called pagan 'origin'"? Really? Even among Christians, nearly all of the behaviors exhibited during this season are pagan. You can say that Christmas is about Christ's birth, but your behavior says something different. Your behavios says you are pagan. (of course, when I use the term "you", I am using it as a general pronoun and I'm not targeting a certain person).Also, December 25 was not "practically every other day of the year". Please research Mithras, Sol Invictus, Pan, the list goes on. When were their birthdays? Why was Christmas switched from January 6 to December 25? Was this a coincidence? I guess I agree that it's not fair to call modern-day Christmas a pagan holiday. I'm also not sure it's fair to call it a Christian holiday either, but either way, please don't any of you forget that early Christians had a difficult time competing with pagan traditions and beliefs. It is a historical fact that dwliberate actions were taken to "christianize" these people and customs. There is nothing wrong with this, just don't try to pretend that Christianity evolved without any influence from pagans. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elielilamasabachthani. And I also have to say that, for Christians such as myself, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. Sure I enjoy getting presents, but I don't view Christmas as getting holiday; it's a giving holiday, and you should give to those in need. (Oh, by the way, I thought it was Eloi eloi lama sabachthani. But maybe there is different ways of spelling it) Αδελφος (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be much more accurate to conclude from all this that, de facto and regardless of history, Christmas is currently a secular event with Christian and non-Christian elements? Much (in fact very much) of the article, as it stands now, explicitly contradicts the initial statement that Christmas is a "Christian holiday". You might as well define a horse as "a brown animal ..." and then spend several pages describing all horses that are not brown as if they were exceptional. AlexFekken (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading?

The following sentence is in the article..

Prominent phrases in Dickens' Yultide tale, 'Bah! Humbug!', and 'Merry Christmas', entered the English language.

This is misleading since clicking on "Merry Christmas" takes you to an article which states that the first recorded use of Merry Christmas was in 1565. Helsingann (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the article..in 1565 'Mery' meant "agreeable", something completely different to 1843 when 'Merry' meant "joyous"/"cheerful" - the context Dickens used it, hence the term had new meaning. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/merry-christmas.html Secondly, first source i looked at, Readers Digest - "Dickens popularized many aspects of Christmas... our language has been enriched by the tale.... "Bah! Humbug!" when feeling irritated or disbelieving. And the phrase "Merry Christmas!" gained wider usage after the story". http://www.readersdigest.ca/christmas/kind_christmas/burns.html

— Raf45Martinez (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious, not historical, Roman festival

We err to say that the Roman significance of 25 December was anything but religious. In the first paragraph, "...may have initially been chosen to correspond with either a historical Roman festival or the winter solstice," should in no uncertain terms reference "a historical religious Roman festival."CalebPM (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical, in this context, means a festival that no longer exists, but existed at the relevant time. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sprucing up

The article needs some serious sprucing up before Christmas this year. It is not at all comprehensive in its treatment of the festival and its celebration, and in places is poorly written and badly ordered. I've made a start by restoring the original order, with the section on the nativity coming just after etymology, and before the very lengthy historical section, which most readers will be less interested in. I've also begun to add a more comprehensive account of how it is celevbrated. The sections on decorations and Santa Claus need work too, and there needs to be a section on important worship events, and other events of the Christmas period, religious and secular. Xandar 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some serious work, especially in the body of the article. I've tried to fix up the intro as best as possible so far, but even that needs more work. I hope we can all work together to vastly improve this article before Christmas. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Father Christmas

The article currently says: In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in North America and Ireland) is a popular mythological figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children. Two issues to discuss

• 1 According to the Father Christmas article, he was not originally a gift-bringer nor associated with children
• 2 To say FC is known as Santa Claus indicates this is a different name for the same figure, when actually there are a number of differences - emphasized to diff degrees by diff people
• 3 the present wording gives primacy to the name FC - suggesting the other name is somehow an alias, mistake, or misnomer.

Instead, perhaps, say something like:

A popular mythological figure, known as Father Christmas in many countries, and as Santa Claus in North America and elsewhere, is associated with the holiday--JimWae (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That change seems fine to me. When I made that edit in my intro revamp I wasn't sure exactly how it should be worded, because although both figures have differing histories, they are essentially the same character. And since FC is the norm in more countries than Santa Claus is, I thought he chould come first. But nonetheless, your change looks fine to me. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also the factor of Saint Nicholas - who doesn't currently get enough mention. Xandar 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "corruption" is strongly misused in this article. Linguistic borrowings hardly merit the connotation of "To render unsound or impure by the contamination of putrid matter; to infect, taint, render morbid." (Oxford English Dictionary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.101.108.227 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of the term Father Christmas, as I would assume all north americans haven't. Surely more people say Santa Claus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The name Kris Kringle was a corruption into the English language? As stated above, the word corrupt has negative connotations. I will change it to a more neutral point, if you don't mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.146.141 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nativity scenes and U.S. law

Haven't there been a few court cases since 1984? Isn't the standard now that such displays are OK if they incorporate other seasonal displays, but that if a level of gov't displays ONLY a creche it IS a first-amendment "establishment of religion" problem--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, yes on both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There still seems to be a lot of controversy about this in the US. It needs a bit more research. Xandar 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You listen to too much talk radio. Certain municipalities have adopted "Creche +" policies concerning publicly owned/displayed Christmas decorations - and right-wing American media outlets certainly like to imply this is the "national standard" as ammo for their "culture war" - but Donnelly is the definitive case in regards to publicly owned and displayed religious symbols. City Nativity displays (and similar religion-specific iconography) are allowed without regard to other religions, ideas, expressions, etc. This coincides with a general shift toward the secular in regards to Christmas over the last couple decades in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.237.25 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Structure reorganization

With this edit, I've restructured the entire article. I know there has been some controversy about the placement of the "Nativity of Jesus" section, but this clearly belongs as a "Celebration" subcategory, and I've listed it first there. The "history" section must come before the "celebration" section, as with any other Wikipedia article. I hope we can, together, further improve the readability and flow of the history section, because currently the "Pre-Christian" history section does not flow well at all, it just lists short summaries of Sol Invictus and Winter festivals. We need to incorporate a flow here, explaining the influence of these festivals on Christmas in a historical context. Please, I hope people can come here to discuss how to improve this. The article's body has been messed up for the longest time, and I think it's about time we really went about fixing it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the placement of the "history" section above that describing what Christmas is and what it is all about. I think it is important to have the description section first. History sections, especially if they are extremely lengthy and esoteric, are not always sited at the top of articles. To compare this with the treatment of equivalent articles on other major festivals: Easter starts with a section on religious significance, before history and disputes over origins, etc. Passover does the same thing, as do Diwali and Eid ul-Fitr, where there is little about history at all.

95% of readers will want to know first what Christmas is and what happens at that time. I can guarantee that they will not want to read through long pages of theories about Roman Gods and Sol Invictis, followed by large reams on Lutheran and Calvinist interactions with the festival in the 16th Century. If the history section was short and to the point, having it first would be less of a problem. But we should be producing an article for Readers not Editors. An early and basic explanation of Christmas is the most necessary and sought after section, and needs to be at the top (after etymology). At the moment most readers will be puzzled what the article is about, and stop reading, since they won't immediately want to be bogged down in irrelevant (to most people) theories about pagan gods of 2000 years ago. The current layout is confusing and off-putting IMO. We need to restore a nativity section to the top. I agree that details of Celebration etc. can be lower down. Xandar 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we can swap out "History" for "Celebration", reverse the order? Does that sound okay to you?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. I just want us to explain what Christmas is NOW, to people who might not know fully, or expect this information to be prominent. Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim readers, for example might not have any prior knowledge at all. Xandar 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Still Needed

I think we need something on the dating difference between Orthodox and Western celebrations. We need more on the economic impact of Christmas. Something on Christmas Carols. I also think we could use a short "Christmas Traditions worldwide" section to link up with the main article on that topic. On an allied idea, do we want to mention special Christmas foods? other ideas? Xandar 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some important points and good ideas, I encourage you to go ahead and start adding some of that. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Article says oldest form is Cristes maesse (1038) but the OED gives Xpes. maessan (a1123 OE. Chron. an. 1101) and Cristes maesse (a1134 OE. Chron. an. 1127). 4 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.108 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the article is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a reliable source, and states 1038. We could quote both I suppose. Xandar 02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Date error

he was noted for the care of Children, generosity, and the giving of gifts. His feast on the 6th of November came to be celebrated in many countries by the giving of gifts. This should say "the 6th of December". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliroze (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Corrected (actually before I even read this note).D. J. Cartwright (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, it's not about what you get, but the thought that counts. Also, the mostimportant is the time being spent with your family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.91.241 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees."

I assume the sentence is referring to South Korea, since the give-giving, decorations and Christmas trees. However there is a massive population of Christians in South Korea, it is one of their main religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.251.251 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Thirty per cent of South Koreans are Christians, but the religion hardly exists at all in North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

24th vs 25th

As I understand it different countries celebrate Christmas on different days. Some the 24th some the 25th. There is no mention of this in the article.. can someone with knowledge on this modify the article with where this varies. As I understand it north Europe and eastern European countries is 24th, and the rest is 25th? -NeF (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little more searching it seems it was aligned to the 25th for Christian reasons? More info would be appreciated -NeF (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard of celebration on the 24th, except as celebration of Christmas Eve in preparation for Christmas Day. As has been said in the article, some nationalities celebrate Christmas on 7th January. Xandar 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In Norway, and I believe in the rest of Scandinavia at least, we celebrate Christmas Eve. This is the night that we open gifts, eat with family and go to church. Though, the 25th is the official holiday, where most stores and such are closed. i can confirm that norwegians celebrate christmas eve. therefore i suggest that dates in all countries are listed with area listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.108.222 (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

However, why the 24th is the day we celebrate I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.244 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity

This article falsely states that Christmas is on December 25th, which is true. However, for a large portion of Christians, it is on January 7th. Therefore, I think that should be included in the introduction, and the infobox.

Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all Christians, and all Christians should be included in this page. --77.122.109.26 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed this to death in talk archives. January 7 is only celebrated because it corresponds to December 25 in the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Christians use because they reject the Gregorian calendar. Adding January 7 in the intro and the infobox will just add unnecessary confusion because it is really December 25 in the Julian calendar. All this is already clarified in the "Celebration" section. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"some eastern national churches, including those of Russia, Georgia, Egypt, Armenia, the Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia celebrate on January 7"

Armenia celebrates on January 6.

Kusko (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro celebrates on January 7. Bozocv (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• • January 7 is only celebrated because it corresponds to December 25 in the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Christians use because they reject the Gregorian calendar.

- This is a very missleading and incorrect statement, both politically and in terms of factual accuracy. The Christian world respects two calendars and neither is the pivotal one. If you're insisting on facts, the Gregorian calendar has stuck to the dates which were celebrated 2000 years ago, while the Julian calendar has introduced reforms and modifications in terms of dates some centuries ago. Orthodox churches did not "reject the Julian calendar" but simply continued to celebrate according to an ancient calendar. Nevertheless apart from the dates the Christmas remains the primary festivity for entire Christendom. Noone has the right to monopolize that holiday and declare other side to be a pariah, especially the 200,000,000+ Orthodox Christian believers.NeroN_BG

Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7 only if you go by the Gregorian calendar. People within that church go by the Julian calendar, meaning they are celebrating on December 25 (of the Julian calendar that they are extrapolating the date from). So everyone celebrates on December 25, but most use the modern and worldwide-spread Gregorian calendar, while Orthodox Christians use the Julian calendar date for December 25, which is January 7. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-I agree with you that "neither is the pivotal one", but one should make sure that people understand that the Gregorian calendar is the ACCURATE one!According to the Julian calendar, the tropic year is EXACTLY 365.25 days long, which is WRONG!Unless you don't mind the Spring equinox, which should fall around the 21st of March, advancing till it falls in January after a few millenaries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.123.139 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How would including January 7th in the infobox be confusing? The fact of the matter is that people of the Orthodox faith celebrate Christmas on January 7th. Not December 25th. Trust me, they don't follow the Julian calendar in their daily lives. So, one part of Christianity celebrated Christmas on Friday. Another part will celebrate it the 7th of January. Because the calendar used by this wiki is Julian, January 7th should be included in the infobox. It won't be confusing at all. --TheDmitryPetrov (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, January 7 is okay in the infobox. But I still don't think it is necessary to include in the main paragraphs of introduction to the article. It is clearly explained in the first "Celebration" section, so there is no need to cause unnecessary confusion over the issue in the intro paragraphs. I will add to the infobox. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate. That's all I was going for. Cheers. --TheDmitryPetrov (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is one page adequate for the subject?

(Page division needed?) The purpose of this article is, in my opinion, unclear and mixed. It attempts to explain both the cultural tradition and Christmas as well as Christmas as a Christian festival. While these traditions are obviously heavy linked, they are still distinct enough to perhaps be split as articles. Often explaining the folklore, pagan, secular etc parts of Christmas is impeded by the religious element, and vice versa I am sure. For example, description of this festival as an iteration of a larger and older Eurasian tradition is prohibited. Also the description of many non-Christian parts of the season are either omitted or non-rigorously alleged to be linked or even born out of Christianity. I am concerned, because many of the people who see the Christmas are looking for a description of the cultural festival (Santa, presents, trees, nuts etc) [perhaps a project outside of the Christianity portal) rather than seeing a religious focused page with some concessions to the festival they were looking for. Sorry for being so wordy, and it is a good article. Protectthehuman (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that the article may need to be split. The problem is, there isn't much left on the religious side if you take out the secular traditions. Sure, there are special church services, but just about every other tradition of the Christian Christmas is derived from a secular or pagan tradition. The religious side of the article would likely be limited to a few biblical accounts of the birth story and a celebration of the importance of Christ in Christian traditions and beliefs. The rest of this holiday is some Christianized version of a pagan or secular practice. Now matter how we cut it, Christmas cannot avoid the fact that it evolved from pagan roots. I would argue that in the actual, observable behaviors of celebrants, Christmas is a secular holiday with a few vague links to Christianity. Even the bible makes little of the birth of Christ. To Christians, it is their belief in Christ’s Immaculate Conception, his teachings as an apocalyptic rabbi and his eventual death/resurrection that matter most. Every historical record on the subjects points to one conclusion: The birth of Christ would not have become important to Christianity if there wasn't a desire by religious people to Christianize longstanding, pagan, winter festivals. These festivals and traditions were so ingrained in societies that even converts to Christianity were not willing to give them up. The solution? Rename the holiday and insert some Christian messages into it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I could just suggest that we remove this holiday from the Christianity portal, but that wouldn’t be fair either. The truth is, early Christians were successful at integrating Christ into this holiday. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be troublesome in other similar articles, eg Easter. Halloween seems to set some kind of precedent for involving religion in the summary, and then disentangling it into its own section. However that is an odd example, as Halloween, in my opinion, is a festival that the religious have largly discontinued their association with. Definitely this is a difficult issue that would require a large consensus and a lot of work. However, this seems doubtful as even the guidance for editing this article seems to pull it back to Christianity, insisting a definition where everything else is secondary. I've been reading through the talk section, and this just seems like a massive unresolved problem. Protectthehuman (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand both of your concerns, but there is no way you can have an article about "Christmas" (Christ's Mass) split into two articles, one about the secular aspects and one about the birth of Jesus. The holiday named "Christmas" cannot be removed from the definition of "the mass (commemoration) of (the birth of) Jesus of Nazareth". The pre-Christian pagan festivals obviously had a huge impact on at the very least the December 25 date for Christmas, but many secular aspects of Christmas originated in the 18th/19th century reformation, not in pagan tradition, such as Santa Claus (although some elements of the Santa story like flying reindeer are pre-St. Nicholas and pre-Christian, going back into Nordic pagan tradition). The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those, and if we were going to realistically split the article we'd need to split it into three articles: Christian Christmas, secular Christmas, and pagan Christmas. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also wanted to add... many atheists, including myself, celebrate some of the "Christian" parts of Christmas as well, such as singing Christian Christmas carols, etcetera. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I now agree that it does not make sense to have two articles (or three), but I must question some of your assertions. You said “The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those…” The problem is, the holiday is about 99% non-christian no matter how you add it up. Christmas is really only a Christian holiday in name. Other than a few church services and nativity scenes (which are not historically accurate), there is no Christianity in Christmas. You contradicted your very own argument when you said that caroling is a “Christian” part of the holiday and that Santa has no pagan origin (a claim which you immediately disprove in your own statement). I wish we had a few more credentialed religious historians here. Your understanding of this issue is on par with most of my “Comparitive Religions 101” students. You’ve come a long way over the years that I’ve been reading your edits, but you are still missing too much of this history to be able to speak with any authority (in my opinion). So, what should we do? I’m not relly sure how much the history matters since this is an article mostly about Christmas today. It just bothers me when people are ignorant of the history and claim that Christmas (as we know it today) was not the result of a deliberate campaign to Christianize pagan and secular traditions. As an evangelical religion, Christianity should never apoligize for melding its self into the traditions we now know as Christmas. This practice is not theologically inconsistent with biblical teachings. All I ask is that everyone respect this history rather than resist it. You can’t just change a holiday’s name and then claim some unqualified ownership of it.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas instituted by church to combat Pagan Day of the Sun festival

According to Sir James George Frazer the church encouraged Christians to celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus because of the enourmous popularity of the Pagan holiday, even among Christians. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PT379&dq=mithras+christmas+birthday&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Hopefully some secular person can add these important historical facts. I won't bother as I have better things to do than deal with religious fanatics who have hijacked the majority of articles dealing with Christianity on wikipedia.201.230.48.220 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Merry Christmas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 and A Happy New Year on Jan 1, 2010. http://my.calendars.net/michaelmlazo

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.237.100 (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe the sol invictis theories are already mentioned in the history section. Xandar 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tweak opening sentence

Opening sentence has an intense "don't change" comment stemming from a 2006 dispute, so I'll comment even though the change was sufficiently minor. I tweaked it turning an adjective into a prepositional clause so that it's factually accurate. (The old version, to an unaware reader, would literally imply that non-christian nations which observe Christmas do so in secular celebration of Jesus's birth, akin to the US's Martin Luther King Day.) Tiny inaccuracy, small tweak. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording "for Christians" in the opening tweak that you made, but I am okay with removing "Christian" as an adjective for "holiday" as a compromise. Please reach consensus here at the talk page for any such changes to the introductory sentence. It is POV to consider that only those adhering to Christianity choose to commemorate Jesus of Nazareth's birth. We need sources to verify this claim if you think it is worth noting. Thanks. — CIS ^(talk |

stalk) 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Nonsense. This is primarily a Christian festival and this should be reflected as such. Minority attitudes towards it, while important and worthy of inclusion, should not be presented in a weirdly revisionist light, nor in conflict with the primary focus of the day for the vast majority of individuals who observe it. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No debate-- both traditionally and primarily, Christmas is a Christian celebration of Jesus's birth and we can unabashedly say so. We just can't say it's exclusively a Jesus celebration, since a major chunk of the industrialized non-christians nations also have a Christmas celebration that is largely unconnected to Jesus.

So, help me understand where our reasonings diverge. What's being argued?

• Only Christians celebrate Christmas-- the non-christian nations do have celebrations that, while christmas-like, aren't actually Christmas proper.
• Or, non-Christian nations do have Christmas, but their Christmas is still primarily a celebration of Jesus of Nazareth, whose divinity they deny but who they still deeply revere nonetheless.
• Or, since Wikipedia is an english-language project and English-speaking countries are typically Christian, the rest of the world is sufficiently non-notable that we can ignore them for the purposes of the lede?

Or something else?

My apologies for bolding on that-- I didn't anticipate it being controversial. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording "for Christians" suggests that there will be a follow-up explaining what Christmas commemorates for non-Christians. But there is not a centralized reason that non-Christians celebrate Christmas, and many may indeed be celebrating or commemorating Jesus' birth as part of their celebrations. It is most neutral to simply state that Christmas is a Christian holiday that commemorates Jesus' birth, which doesn't assert who does or doesn't celebrate his birth. It appears Notpieru is in agreement with you here, but we should get a larger consensus here before the wording is changed, IMO. I've switched out "for Christians" with "in Christianity" for now, which I believe is more neutral, hopefully we can come to an agreement. I've asked some other users to comment. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Way better!. This is why I love Wikipedia.  :) 'In Christianity' is much better than my 'for Christians', because the Jesus aspects aren't 100% exclusive to Christians-- any Muslims who celebrate Christmas, for example, are likely to also commemorate the virgin birth of Jesus. Better all the time, good work and Merry Christmas CIS. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't see a massive difference in the versions, I do think that the previous " "Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus", is very factual, and basically inarguable. "Christmas... is an annual holiday that, in Christianity, commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ." Is also factual but implies that Christmas is an anuual holiday of other faiths or of those resolutely of no faith. But while people who are non-Christians may celebrate and party at Christmas time, there is a difference between that and other religions and secular leaderships formally celebrating Christmas. Christmas IS a Christian holiday. It is not a jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or a secular holiday - except in the sense that some such people choose (or are forced by circumstance) to celebrate or take time off work over the Christmas period. Those non-christians who DO feast, party and celebrate at Christmas time are acknowledging, however grudgingly, a Christian holiday. Those who claim to be celebrating something else (Hannukah - Kwaanza - etc) are presumably not celebrating Christmas. So we are largely left with secular people who party at Christmas time while rejecting Christianity. I dfon't think their existence makes Christmas suddenly not be a Christian holiday. Xandar 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting: "[The current wording] is also factual but implies that Christmas is an annual holiday of other faiths or of those resolutely of no faith. But while people who are non-Christians may celebrate and party at Christmas time, there is a difference between that and [...] Christmas.

So, I think the portion I quoted gets to the heart of the question. Do non-christian nation's celebrations fall under the umbrella of "Christmas" or is the word "Christmas" reserved exclusively for Christian celebrations.

I think the language could be used either way. The one piece of evidence I'd say that argues strongly that non-christian nations' winter celebrations _are_ Christmas is that many of them use the english word "Christmas" to describe their celebration. So, taking only the 1.1 billion citizens of India-- their national holiday is, in fact, called 'Christmas', with English an official national language.

Note I'm making a very different point from the whole "War on Christmas" hubbub about Christmas within traditionally Christian nations. That's a far more subtle question. But India and China alone count for about half the world, and they both have non-Christian Christmases (or faux-Christmases, if we prefer).  :)

And now, Merry Christmas to all you Wikipedians out there. :) It's lovely working with you. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I agree with Xandar; he basically expresses what I was trying to convey but couldn't quite get out. Christmas is a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus' birth, regardless of its pagan connections or influences, and regardless of how many non-Christians choose to celebrate it secularly today. I think the original intro is most appropriate; it's the standard intro in most of the other language Wikipedias as well. If Christmas ever reaches a status like Halloween has, where it has become completely secular with no religions daring claim it (i.e. if the Catholic Church, in the future, were to denounce Christmas) then we can play around with the intro sentence. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need only wait for it to become like Valentine's Day or St Patricks Day (neither of which is wiki-defined as Christian days) -- which Xmas is pretty close to already --JimWae (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point there, Jim, but we also most remember that Christmas has a lot of still-prominent Christian elements that are widely publicized and celebrated during the season, ranging from midnight mass to extremely popular Christmas carols that explicitly mention and glorify the birth of Jesus. Neither Valentine's Day nor St. Patrick's Day have these elements, so I think it will be a lot harder to cite a notable much less complete disconnect between Christmas and Christianity into the foreseeable future. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But-- if Christmas is, by definition, a Jesus-centered celebration, then the article needs to switch it's terminology when discussing the non-Christian Christmas-like celebrations throughout Asia.

The current article's logic goes:

1. Christmas is a celebration of Jesus

2. Christmas is widely celebrated in, for example, India.

But these two statements are incompatible, because they lead to:

3. Therefore, either India is a largely christian nation or else India has a secular "Martin Luther King Day"-esque celebration honoring Jesus.

But since we also know that, for example, India's Christmas (or 'Christmas'-like holiday) isn't at all Jesus-focused, we've created an article that is partially nonsensical.

The "Christmas" article could either be about the general "Christmas (umbrella term)" or specifically about Christmas (Christian Holiday. But, if we go with Christmas (Christian Holiday) in the lede, we have to stick with that strict meaning in the body too, or else we'll create nonsensical sentences like the one above. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand the point you're making here, and there's no real easy way to resolve this. I would tend to agre that perhaps predominantly non-Christian populations, as you suggested, are celebrating a more-or-less "Christmas-like" holiday that conveniently drops (most) elements of Jesus' birth. But then again, you often see many Japanese renditions of popular Christian Christmas carols like "O Holy Night", which are also sung by atheists in Europe and America. Is this a "secular commemoration of Jesus' birth" or just the joyful singing of lyrics without paying them much attention? Most often the latter, but either option is a possibility and it would be OR to suggest that all non-Christians celebrate a Christmas completely devoid of incorporating Jesus in any way. If you'll check this old revision of Christmas I'll direct you to this long-removed sentence that perhaps should be reintroduced:

"Christmas is celebrated in most countries around the world, owing to the spread of Christianity and Western culture".

Christianization and Westernization; these are absolutely central to the spread of Christmas into the non-Christian world despite its potentially sectarian status. Christmas is indeed still defined as a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus (as initially defined by the RCC at its creation in the 4th century), regardless of how one individual or one entire (non-Christian) country chooses to celebrate it... and the holiday is widespread mostly thanks to mass Christianization, fun secular elements (many of which were indeed likely borrowed from pagan festivals), and the spread of Western culture across the world (most notably in Japan).

The core point of it all, for me, is this: if non-Christians are claiming to be celebrating "Christmas" and not "Yule", "Saturnalia" or just a floatingly-defined "winter holiday", then they are still falling under the umbrella of celebrating the Christian holiday commemorating Jesus' birth. That's how I feel about it, even though I'm an agnostic atheist who celebrates Christmas. So although your #1 and #2 statements may be accurate, your #3 statement need not be the conclusion. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The more I think over this and read over the FARC and GAR, the more I think a clear consensus is needed about the scope of the article. Right now, the two potential scopes impossibly tangled. Is this article about the Anglo-American Christians' "Christmas", the Western Europe's Dec 25 Feast of various names, all Christian Jesus-birth commemorations regardless of name or date, or all Christmas celebrations including the celebrations of non-christian nations. As is, the scope is constantly changing from sentence to sentence. If it's all, the lede is inaccurate. If it's by definition the Dec 25 Christian Feast Day, then broad swaths of the article are factually inaccurate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about the issue, I'd suggest that you perhaps start writing up some alternate drafts at a sub-user article location like User:Alecmconroy/Christmas and bring discussion about them here so we can discuss their potential replacement of the current article. It will be a lot easier to discuss the possible changes that you'd like to have done if we could see them written out. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Issue

Under controversy it says, "In the private sphere also, it has been alleged". Who is alleging this? Without reference to specific groups or persons this sounds like a "straw man argument". The response to these supposed allegations linked to a particular group, but the allegation itself is not proven.

The citations for those claims are at the main Christmas controversy article itself. You are welcome to add them to this article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Magi (wise men) in nativity scenes

In discussions of the appearance of the wise men (magi), it should be mentioned that the biblical account states that King Herod ordered the killing of male children two or under when the magi did not return to him after seeing Jesus. This indicates that they were not in attendance at Christ's birth {"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Matthew 2:16 NAS)}. Also, the magi did not see Jesus in a manger or stable, but in a house {"And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11 NAS)}, which is another indication that they were not in attendance at the time of Jesus' birth. 98.149.205.236 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas before Christianity

We should also mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated even before the introduction of Christianity. Bosniak (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Really, where do you people get this stuff? CHRISTmas is a CHRISTian feast. Whether it replaced an earlier celebration is already documented. Read the article. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cme on Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση, maybe Bosniak wasn't literally accurate since it wasn't called Christmas pre-Christ, but his point is valid. I do acknowledge that this is covered throughout the article and in this discussion, so probably no need to go further here. Nearly every custom and behavior associated with Christmas existed before Christ. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is completely true that Christmas was never celebrated before Christianity. Almost nothing is original anyway, so it is irrelevant that some Christmas customs have nothing to do with Jesus. These customs are part of the Christmas celebration. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy!

Congratulations Wikipedia for including accurate information about the origin of the Christmas feast, better known as Yule or Winter Solstice. It's rare to see factually accurate information on here. I nominate the relevant portions of this article as an example for all to follow. :) 81.141.76.119 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas

The article on Christmas is good but the author seems not to know the reason why it is placed in the calendar when it is. The feast is placed purposely then because it is the time when the sun begins to increase, just as the Feast of John the Baptist in June is set for the time when the sun begins to decrease - based on John the Baptists own words of "He must increase and I must decrease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donockley (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are various contradictory theories on the dating of Christmas, of which Donockley's is only one. None are conclusively proven. The solstice festival theory is only that. Others say Christmas is dated 9 months from the Annunciation, (conception of Jesus), festival on 25th March. Xandar 00:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Current tradition in Colombia

The article states that "Current tradition in several Latin American countries (such as Venezuela and Colombia) holds that while Santa makes the toys, he then gives them to the Baby Jesus, who is the one who actually delivers them to the children's homes, a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States."

I have heard of no such tradition and cannot find any reference anywhere to it. Santa Claus is an imported figure of the traditional Christmas celebration but to my knowledge nobody in those countries holds that Santa Claus makes the toys and gives them to Baby Jesus. Please state the source of this claim, which I believe to be false.

Pbueno (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Pablo 12/30/2009

Pablo, there's a reason why Wikipedia is never used academically, or by anybody looking to get taken seriously. Don't sweat it, just change it and move on. This is all a big word game ;) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-US/UK-centric Christmases

per suggestion above

Referring to [1],

• Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25 is not fact. EO church exists.
• Christmas is a Chrisian holiday is not a fact. Non-christian nations with Christmases exist.

The lede linked to that, so should future ledes. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we're having a difficult time getting other users to comment on this matter to get a different angle/opinion on this, but I'll reply anyway. For your first point, Christmas Day is indeed celebrated on December 25 universally, technically speaking. The EO church celebrates as per the Julian calendar, meaning they are still celebrating on the 25... it just happens to fall on January 7 in the reformed Gregorian calendar that is used civilly worldwide. The Gregorian celebration date of January 7 is mentioned clearly in the infobox, and I am of the opinion that adding it to the actual article's introduction will just unnecessarily confuse readers, as we are supposed to be clearly indicating the reason for December 25 as the date for Jesus' birthday; which January 7 has nothing to do with. As for the second point, I've already commented my opinion above. If non-Christian nations and/or peoples choose to celebrate Christmas, that is their prerogative, but it doesn't make the holiday any less officially a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And it is POV for us to say that any commemoration of Jesus' birthday is only observed "by Christians" or "in Christianity", because many non-Christians may indeed acknowledge Jesus during the holiday, albeit perhaps in a diminished way.— CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: it is your definition of Christmas as "commemorating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth" that is POV. To most people in this world Christmas is whatever they celebrate on 25 (and 26) December and however they celebrate it. Most aspects of Christmas, as most people celebrate it, have absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, as the article itself shows.

Wikipedia does not define Sunday as a "Christian weekday" (though I admit that a medieval Western European version of Wikipedia probably would and should have done so) and it should show the same level of "enlightenment" with regards to defining Christmas and similar terms that, for most people, have long ago lost the connection with their origins. AlexFekken (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Christmas was once an exclusively Christian holiday, but that's just no longer true. Elements of the christ-celebration have gotten absorbed into a meta-holiday that is widely celebrated by non-christian nations. This must be how the pagans felt when their Dec25ish winter festivals got absorbed into Christmas. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Wikipedia is not a collection of original research. We must provide citations that indicate the main definition of the holiday of Christmas. All major sources cite Christmas foremost as a "Christian holiday celebrating/commemorating the birth of Jesus". What are some alternate proposals (notable and cited) for the leading sentence? I'd love to hear them; I'm certainly open to changing it, as long as it is sourced and notable. I've never read any encyclopedia or dictionary defining Christmas as other than what we have defined it as. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I get your point but even the Merriam-Webster source of the article gives a secondary definition as "Christmastide", i.e. "the festival season from Christmas Eve till after New Year's Day or especially in England till Epiphany". In order words: major sources (I checked some others as well) acknowledge a secondary definition that avoids the qualification of "Christian". In my personal opinion this reflects the inertia of a shifting trend even in "pro-Christian biased" sources. It would be nice if somebody could come up with other, less "pro-Christian biased" sources where perhaps the situation is reversed. But lacking that for the moment, perhaps Wikipedia could at least acknowledge the existence of alternative definitions and make the result more consistent with what everybody already knows (using the same sources). AlexFekken (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative definition perhaps this will do as it can use the same sources: "Christmas is alternatively defined as an annual Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ or as the secular celebration during the same period." I think that the reference to "Christmas Day" in this definition must be removed as it only refers to the 25th and not to "Christmas" as whole (whatever your definition). It could be defined in the next sentence. AlexFekken (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I just realised that, especially if the definition Christmas is kept as is (but otherwise as well), a change is probably needed to the start of the second paragraph: "Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians". This now suggests that all Christians celebrate (or at least acknowledge) Christmas as a Christian holiday. It shouldn't be necessary to go the controversy section or to other sources to find out that a significant number of Christians do not celebrate or even acknowledge Christmas (using arguments that are purely Christian), especially with the current definition suggesting otherwise. AlexFekken (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is being discussed is hardly UK/US Christmas, it's generally European, extended to Western, practice. Attacks on Christianity are well and good (you can hate whatever you like) but misappropriation of facts (especially doing so clumsily) is just shoddy. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is going a bit off topic but I am not even sure about that. The attack isn't on Christianity but on the definition of Christmas. It is fine if Christians (well, most Christians) want to define Christmas exclusively as a Christian holiday for themselves, or Sunday (or Sabbath) as a religious day for themselves, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world must do the same thing. Those days are over (now that was an little attack on Christianity). There is no "misappropriation of facts" that I am aware of.

And on second thought, it is probably not off topic in this section. As the "proper definition" of Christmas is determined by consensus and everyday use of the word (which is what the dictionaries should reflect), it might well need to be different in the US, the UK and elsewhere. AlexFekken (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christians may have "stole" or "ripped off" a pagan holiday and turned it into their own, but that's just the thing — they turned it into their own. They made a separate holiday, named it "Christmas" (i.e. "Mass of Christ"), and they defined it as being a commemoration of the birth of Jesus, as mostly all external sources will confirm as the definition of Christmas (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.). Just because non-Christians celebrate it today thanks to commercial aspects that have been incorporated into it over the years does not change the definition of the holiday. Until external sources start defining it as otherwise, or until it reaches a completely secular state, or until we branch off and create a "new" December 25 holiday like the Christians did from the pagans, the definition of the holiday should remain as is. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not getting the point: this is not about how Christians may or may not have "stolen" a pagan holiday. The history of the whole thing is irrelevant to the current definition(s). I thought I was very clear in talking about what Christmas means in the present only. And I also clearly pointed out that even the main source that is used in the article already gives an alternative definition of Christmas without calling it Christian.

You are probably confused because of the etymology of the word "Christmas". I totally agree that this (the etymology) is Christian because the event itself was once Christian. But this was when setting up a Christmas tree technically speaking still carried the death penalty, at least according to the Christian bible. Meanwhile the meaning of the word has changed and dictionaries ARE acknowledging that like I pointed out before. Based on etymology "Thursday" would be a religious day (for those who worship Thor) and Sunday would be a pagan day in England, Germany and the Netherlands and a Christian day in France, Spain and Italy. But of course this is all nonsense, just as the etymological argument for Christmas is. Do I like this sort of language corruption? No, but it is a fact of life and I can live with a non-Christian Christmas just as I can live with a Thursday that has nothing to do with Thor apart from an etymological origin in the Dark Ages (and without excluding the possibility that a considerable number of people might still worship Thor and consider it a religious day). But more relevantly: most people can and do so. And this is what dictionaries and encyclopaedias reflect, or at least they should reflect if they didn't lag behind (e.g. behind dictionaries like Merriam-Webster) as much as Wikipedia does on this topic. AlexFekken (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about the name. Easter is a Christian holiday, even though in English it has taken the name of a pagan goddess, and non-Christians take the day off and eat Easter eggs and Hot Cross buns. The same applies to Christmas. It is centrally and primarily a Christian holiday and atheists celebrate it, if at all, grudgingly. Very few people go about celebrating Sol Invictis or the Great Solstice either. In fact in atheist Communist regimes, the first thing they try to do is abolish Christmas. Xandar 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are your arguments to support the claim that "atheists celebrate it, if at all, grudgingly"? Even taking this unsubstantiated (and false) claim into account you are saying nothing that undermines my arguments. So lets change the definition if only to stop it from breaching Wikipedia policy as I explained above. AlexFekken (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, whoever did it. But although Christmas is not defined as a *Christian* holiday any more, the part of the definition that says "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is still a violation of policy as it is not in agreement with the source definition. Those who do not celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday obviously do not necessarily do so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" either. It is still disputable OR and POV to assume and state that they do.

Of course the first sentence in the second paragraph ("Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians") now needs updating as well. Something like simply "Christmas is widely celebrated by Christians and non-Christians" might be better. AlexFekken (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. I think AlexFekken is making some very valid points here. Today, Christmas may be a Christian holiday, but that's not all it is. I will support any edits that clarify this. I think this is the best way to convey to readers that this holiday is both Christian and secular at the same time. Perhaps the same can be said about Easter as well. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems like some people have a problem accepting the existence of different and inconsistent definitions of the same term. I have no problem with recognising that Christians would define Christmas as a Christian holiday as long as it is also recognised that others define Christmas in a different way (making it a different Christmas if you like, but still called "Christmas"). Wikipedia should reflect both definitions because the primary source does. At the moment (in spite of the change) it still actually reflects only one of the definitions, inconsistently (because the change was only partial), and in spite of my explicit proposal above to simply give two alternative definitions like the sourced dictionary.

With regards to Easter: Merriam-Webster does not (unfortunately in my opinion) support a secular definition of Easter. However, it only takes one reliable source to support the case. So if anybody can find one then yes, Easter should be treated likewise. AlexFekken (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is this "second definition" you are talking about? And what are sources for it?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it you want cited? That non-Christians notably and widely celebrate Christmas? Or that a dictionary regard this as a "separate definition", rather than an additional fact? The first is trivial to cite, the second is unnecessary since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and we would never normally think of taking our ledes from a dictionary. (That said, I'm sure with all the nations and all the dictionaries out there, such an entry mentioning secular Christmas is definitely out there, if we want to find it.) --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that non-Christians widely and notably celebrate Christmas is already mentioned and sourced in the article. I'm responding to the apparent need to tweak the introductory sentence to change the main definition of Christmas to include something other than Jesus' birth. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, and yes we are supposed to be creative and elaborate with our introductions and leads, but everything still needs to be sourced. The fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday intended (manufactured) to commemorate the birth of Jesus is a well-known and sourced fact. If you wanted to add something else about a secular definition to the lead, i.e. "Christmas is about peace", you'd need to find reliable sources repeating the exact same definition. This is a controversial issue, we can't just have every second person adding their own "personal definition" of Christmas in the lead.

A good idea to go with is perhaps that we can simply broaden the first sentence to include several different sourced ideas about Christmas, but they must all be reliable and notable. Something like "Christmas is a holiday celebrated on December 25 that commemorates the birth of Jesus, celebrates peace toward mankind, and general goodwill" would be a good path to take, but it would still need to be heavily sourced as most reliable and widespread definitions of Christmas only include reference to Jesus' birth. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy for how often I have to repeat myself? As I wrote several times above I am talking about the only live source for the definition in the article that appears to be neutral, i.e. [6] Merriam-Webster. I have even literally quoted the second definition above, but I can do it again: "christmastide", which is defined as "the festival season from Christmas Eve till after New Year's Day or especially in England till Epiphany".

Note that I didn't come up with this source, it was there all the time and it was abused (i.e. only partially used) all the time: all I did was point that out. So are we saying, all of a sudden now, that dictionaries aren't suitable reliable sources any more? For a definition, of all things? And that this has nothing to do with the fact that some people only wanted to use the part of a definition that suited them? AlexFekken (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Have you seen the Christmastide article? There's already an article for that, and it clearly is defined as a season of the Christian liturgical year and it ends with the Christian holiday of Epiphany. How is this a secular definition of Christmas? And how is it a definition of Christmas at all? It's a definition of Christmastide.

The opening paragraph of this article also already references Christmastide, in this line: "Christmas is central to the Christmas and holiday season, and in Christianity marks the beginning of the larger season of Christmastide, which lasts twelve days.^[12]". Are you suggesting that we reference a definition of Christmastide at the Christmas article to secularly define Christmas? Christmastide is synonymous with Christmas, it isn't Christmas itself; Merriam-Webster has a separate entry for Christmastide. If you want to reference Merriam-Webster's definition for Christmastide, you can do so at the Christmastide article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First of the all, the fact the Wikipedia may also define Christmastide incorrectly does not prove anything. This discussion is not about fixing the Christmastide entry as well (though it may turn into that, see my fourth point). Moreover, if I remember correctly Wikipedia isn't supposed to use itself as a reliable source, and certainly not as the main reliable source. Not that that would be necessary because we actually have a source: to me a general dictionary seems like the ideal reliable source for a definition. Too bad that I see only attempts to misquote the source (you just did it again!) and even an attempt to dispute the suitability of the source without any arguments given.

Second, even if it were true, the fact that Christmastide would end on Epiphany would not make it non-secular. We have already had a very similar discussion about Sunday, Thursday etc. But in fact you are misquoting the Merriam-Webster definition again: the Epiphany part is qualified with "especially in England" and New Year's Day (another Christian holiday?) is actually the primary end date given.

Third, Merriam-Webster's secondary definition of Christmas is one word ("Christmastide"), which is a hyperlink to the definition under discussion. How can this NOT mean that the definition of Christmastide is an alternative definition for Christmas as well?

Fourth, if you think that the two different definitions of Christmas in Merriam-Webster should be treated in two different articles (e.g. a Christian Christmas and a secular Christmastide), then fine, but let's start then with a disambiguation page of "Christmas" listing both of these definitions accurately, i.e. in agreement with the source(s). AlexFekken (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing at least two definitions (secular based and Christian based) in this article. Disambigulation may be necessary, but it seems to me there is room for this to fit nicely into one article. What about a sentence that describes Christmas as a Christian holiday for many Christians, but at the same time, a secular holiday for many people. Merriiam-Webster would be a good citation for this fact. The American Heritage Dictionary also defines Christmas as "Christmastide" in its third definition. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday, full stop. Secular people may also celebrate at Christmas time, but what they are celebrating is a Christian holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, even if they don't believe in the originating event itself. This is an important distinction. A few people may celebrate Hannukah or saturnalia at the same time, but they, by definition, are not celebrating Christmas. Xandar 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Christmas, the non-christian holiday

So, there's a marvelous 600+ comment discussion on just this very point. Their conclusions aren't important-- it's not a representative sample or anything, but it has a lot of interesting points and links. It's nice because we only have a few people here, so it is kind of nice to see 600 discussions on the very same point.

The two big things that I noticed in the discussion is:

• Christmas in Hindu nations is fleshed out a great deal more from the point of view of people raised Hindu.
• It's pointed out that even in the US, courts have found a the secular definition of Christmas as an constitutionally-established federal holiday. (As it is in India and probably most countries around the world).

--Alecmconroy (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we are quoting possibly interesting but not necessarily Wiki-reliable sources now, here are some more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6193235.stm claims that less than half of English/British(?) children associates Christmas with the birth of Jesus.

http://www.netwerk.tv/uitzending/2009-12-17/de-grote-kerst-enqu%C3%AAte (in Dutch) has some detailed results under the link "enquête", if you can read it. It shows that, when given 3 choices to pick from a list of 10 things to associate with Christmas, only 26% picked "religion" and 13% picked "church visit" in any of their 3 choices (overlap not documented). All other choices (except maybe 1% "don't know") were non-religious ("Santa Claus", "good food", "social obligations", etc). Part of these people are not Christian (but e.g. Muslim) so that e.g. "religion" does not necessarily imply "Christian". Furthermore, only 14% picked one of these two religious associations as their primary choice (and this still included non-Christians). Not surprisingly, more than half (56%) said not to be religious.

However, when given (only) the choice of associating Christmas with either Jesus or Santa Claus the majority (57%) still chose Jesus, while 39% chose Santa Claus (and 4% doesn't know). Interestingly this fact ("Jesus preferred over Santa Claus" or similar) was the headline that drew my attention to the enquiry. AlexFekken (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should give an executive summary of this: A Dutch enquiry showed that only 14% of all interviewed primarily associates Christmas with something religious, while approximately 36% of the interviewed Christians did so. It seems that in the Netherlands even among Christians Christmas is not (primarily) a Christian holiday any more. AlexFekken (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the above editors and support a wording with less religious bias and POV. As of now the only 3 of us actually discussing the issue here are in complete agreement, which is also called "consensus". Doc Tropics 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I and other editors voiced our opinions in the above section. There is no discussion here at all regarding the wording of concern in the edit war. IMO it is in violation of both WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to say "most people" without a source. The sources in the opening sentences confirm that Christmas is a "Christian" holiday. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominally, there is no doubt it is a Xn holiday, because its common name comes from a title for Jesus. However, there is also no doubt that Xty does not encompass the many different ways Christmas has been & is celebrated. A flat statement that it is a Xn holiday is somewhat misleading, even if the name is Xn.--JimWae (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to make a compromise and use the wording "Although nominally a Christian holiday" instead of the "Although most consider this to be a Christian holiday" wording. That conveniently gets rid of the OR and WEASEL problems. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would consider "nominally" to be an acceptable modifier in that sentence; it actually seems to capture the essence quite well. Good suggestion! Doc Tropics 05:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "nominally" is a reasonable edit in my opinion. I will make it so. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Repetition in History section

The "History" section has two sentences that should be connected in some way, since their separation suggests that they are not related. The early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 A.D.) thought this dating plausible and suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date.[50] According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after nine months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25th.[49] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation on March 25, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.

I'd edit it myself, but this page is locked...presumably to prevent godless marketers from saying Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.196.28 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote this material because it is quite misleading. The theory that Africanus calculated the nativity as March 25 plus nine months was proposed by Duchesne in the 19th century. It is just speculation because Africanus' writing has not survived. To write about what Africanus "thought" is doubly speculative. IMO, this whole theory doesn't really explain anything. The ancient medical authorities discuss eight month, nine month, and ten month pregnancies -- they did not calculate due dates or think of pregnancy as something that should last exactly nine months. Why not a birth date of Dec. 24 or Dec. 26? The March 25 plus nine month explanation only begs the question of, Why is Annunciation on March 25? Presumably because that was the date of the equinox. Putting Christian festivals on solar days is natural given the well-documented link early Christians made between Jesus and the "sun of righteousness." To say that Christmas is on the date of the Roman solstice festival (Bruma) is a satisfactory explanation by itself -- the nine month calculation just adds a little extra gloss. Kauffner (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)