Talk:December 25

--mav 01:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Template:December 25 selected anniversaries view - talk - edit

---

The year associated with the traditional birth of Christ should be 1 BC, not 1 AD. For purposes of reckoning the calender, Dionysius Exiguus set the date of Jesus' birth on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita: that is, since the (traditional) founding of Rome), and started the era 8 days later on 1 January 754. The year 754 became 1 AD, and when BC dates began to be used, the year 753 was 1 BC, as there is no year 0. Odd as it may seem when you abbreviate it, the traditional birth of Christ was 25 December 1 BC, not AD! Someone else

Who is Dorothy Worsworth? -- Zoe

I guess it's a typo for "Dorothy Wordsworth", sister of William, and herself a noted diarist. I'll fix it. --Camembert

Was Tony Martin born in 1912 or 1913? His profile says 1913, but this page says 1912.

Vandalized?

Someone vandalized Jesus.... I reverted it to an older state - 30 September 2005

POV and inaccurate information

There is no evidence that Jesus was actually born on December 25. December 25 is the time around the Winter Solstice, and also was the date of the celebration of the birth of Mithras. This is the origin of the Christmas holiday. The article reads "0 - (actual date should be 6 BC) Jesus, great religious teacher, one of the most influential figures of all time". "Great religious teacher" is POV, and "one of the most influential figures of all time" is POV, unless you add something like "considered to be one of the most influential figures in history" but that "of all time" nonsense is pathetic. There is no "year 0", and it would be better put just as "1" not "0". Revolución 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being that there is no proof that Jesus was born on December 25 (and no serious scholar actually believes he was) I had parenthetically added "traditionally" to the date. Rt66lt, August 10, 2005

"Traditional" is fine, but then it's clear we're not celebrating a birthday but a tradition or holiday. As a result, the reference to Jesus belongs entirely under the Holiday section. Placing it under "Births" is a POV that most of the world doesn't agree with and isn't supported historically (only by tradition). Also keep in mind that not even all Christian traditions place Christ's birth on the 25th. Examples: Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic Christians don't celebrate Christ's birthday on the 25th, and Jehova's Witnesses don't celeberate Christ's birthday at all. Rklawton 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Christmas celebration list:

• December 25 - Roman Catholics, most Protestants
• January 6 - Armenians (not in the Holy Land)
• January 7 - Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches
• January 18 - Armenians (in the Holy Land)
• not at all - Jehova's Witnesses
• others?

Rklawton 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

300 days from March 1

Why would anyone care how many days are between March 1 and December 25? This seems like a huge piece of non-information to have sitting at the top of the artice. I'm going to go ahead and delete it - if you wish you replace it please provide some rationale to help me understand why. Musser 04:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Julian calendars use the day count. When I served in the U.S. Army, all our official calendars had the day count printed on each date. Rklawton 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doh! My bad. March 1st? I was thinking January 1st. I haven't a clue, either. Rklawton 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Trudeaus

I have added the birth of the sons of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Sasha and Justin Trudeau, who were both born on 25 December 1973, and 1971 respectivily.

newton

what about Newtonmas

Jesus Christ under the "Birth's"

The article currently only says "Jesus" as the name of the person born on December 25. "Jesus" was a fairly common name in that period. I had edited the name "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" to be more specific. Moreover, earlier today (26 December 2005) I had edited the year from "1 BCE" to "1 BC". The BC/AD system is more frequently used in the world and on Wikipeida at this time and is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ, whose birth is being dated. The "Births" section of this page would be much more correct and better understood by the masses if for the birth of Jesus Christ it said "Jesus Christ - 1 BC" rather than "Jesus - 1 BCE"

Jesus links directly to the article for the most widely known person with that name, and no one who clicks that link is going to be surprised. "Christ" is not a name, it is a title which expresses a point of view which is not shared by everyone. Leave it at the simple nuetral link to the name, not at a redirect. And before you edit a single additional page, please look up the proper use of the apostrophe. "Birth's" is an abomination. CDThieme 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the traditional date of Christ's birth is AD 1, not 1 BC! jguk 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Christ's birth is traditionally 25 December, 1 BC, His first full year of life being in 1 AD. 24.222.79.90 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

That's a matter of POV specific to Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic churches would beg to differ. What is NPOV in this matter is that Roman Catholics and (most) Protestants celebrate the Christmas holiday on the 25th. As a result, references to Christ's birth belongs under holiday (just as it should on other dates also celebrated as Christ's birth by other Christians). The point is, let's keep NPOV. Listing Christ's birth as a fact on a specific day is POV - even within Christian communities. Rklawton 19:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The R.C. of Saints should come before Roman Festivals

The Roman Caledar of Saints observance of "The Nativity of the Lord" should come before the Roman Rituas "(re)birth of Sol" since there are more persons on Earth at the time that consider themselves Roman Catholic than of the Ancient Roman Mytholicial Religion.

edit wars

no silly edit wars, please. Why don't we compromise and put BC and BCE next to each other or something.--Alhutch 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm not going to permit people removing BCE unless we have a discussion about it here or elsewhere first and come to a consensus.--Alhutch 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While we're on the subject, Darwiner111's been blocked 5 days by Knowledge Seeker, and I myself have blocked Jonathunder for 3 hours - as an admin he should know better than to break 3RR. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Block in error, unblocked. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made my third revert, so as the article stands it reads BC. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So wait, is this article supposed to read BC then next to Jesus's birth since it was there first? Homestarmy 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Chinese (in general) all have their own calendars, I think that the NPOV term would be BCE - as it reflects the world's majority. Certainly as a Christian I don't find the term BCE (or CE) factually untrue. Conversley, historians and religion scholars have reached consensus that Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was not actually born in 1 BCE. Therefore the BC/AD designations are factually disputed, whereas BCE and CE are not. In short, there is no doubt that this present year is commonly referred to 2006, even though the "year of our lord" is not precisely known. Rklawton 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Era or Anno Domini?

Reference to Jesus' birth prior to the edits by User:Jonathunder involved either BC or AD without argument, and the introduction of the common era terminology was undiscussed prior to its replacement of BC. I believe there should be a discussion and perhaps a vote here on the discussion page as to whether BC or BCE should be used, and if nobody discusses or votes, I will take the liberty of changing BCE back to the original BC, pointing to this discussion article as reference. 1929Depression 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I agree, I tried to ask about this very same thing a couple days ago but nobody answered, if it started out as BC, (And apparently it did) then it should stay BC. Plus, it just plain looks ugly putting BCE next to Christ. Homestarmy 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous, Homestarmy. You wouldn't believe the amount of discussion at the Jesus talk page about whether AD or CE should be used on that page, there's at least two archives detailing it. They've apparently come to the consensus of using both (i.e. 198 BC/BCE), which is frankly absurd considering Jesus is the reason for the original anno Domini terminology and the "new system" is just a Christian-neutral equivilent to anno Domini, which is hardly applicable to Jesus. However, secularity is on the rise and atheists now occupy 14% of the American population, as opposed to around 8% in 1991 so what do you expect. I still think anno Domini should be used here though and since you agree I will revert the BCE alteration if there is no further discussion in the next 24 hours. 1929Depression 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Of course this discussion is entirely ridiculous - especially as the traditional year of Christ's birth is AD 1, not 1 BC. It's all really logical really. Indeed, in England, up to the middle of the eighteenth century, the year began on 25 March because it was on 25 March AD 1 that Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she was with child (if you haven't noticed, 25 March is exactly nine months before 25 December). When it was changed so that 1 January was the start of the year, the year dates changed by attributing January, February and the first part of March to the year after the one they were previously attributed to.

Not for the first time this puerile campaign to impose politically correct nonsense has ended up introducing inaccuracies into Wikipedia. Not only should it stop, ironically you don't even need to refer to AD 1 if you don't want to, you can just call it 1! jguk 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really all that much in favor of BCE. I don't see what's better about it. You can't call it secular, since it's just a disguised way of still using the Christian system. If we're going to use the Christian system, let's be upfront about it. Also, I think the policy concerning this issue on Wikipedia is to just stick with the system that was used in the original writing of the article.--Alhutch 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - The original article uses B.C. and A.D. It also says that Christ was born in 4 B.C. by later calculations, and 1 A.D. by tradition.--Alhutch 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

4 BC is an estimate. 8 BC to 4 BC is generally estimated, with some sources having a tighter estimate of 6 BC to 4 BC (Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and that provides the cut-off), jguk 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, so it should definiently now be BC? Because I can't find in the edit history where anyone has recently tried to switch it back besides NSLE and 1929, and I can jump in if we need it. Homestarmy 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! It should definitely be AD 1. The article is currently WRONG!!!!!!!! jguk 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think BC/AD would be appropriate in this case, although I have just blocked User:1929Depression for block evasion as a sockpuppet of User:Jordain/User:Darwiner111/User:PatrickA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, BC would be entirely inappropriate here - it's AD you want:) jguk 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jguk, Exiguus interpreted Christ's birth as being 25 December, 1 BC, thus the year AD 1 being the first full year "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". Since there are only 6 days remaining after 25 December in the calendar, if Jesus were born on 25 December, AD 1 this would mean his first full year on earth would be AD 2. See the article 1 BC for more information. 24.222.79.90 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh man, here we go again....I really don't think Christ minds too much if we say He was born in either 1 AD or BC, it's not like this dating system was particularily Biblical anyway or that He gave us a warning that all those who did not know the exact date He was born would not recieve forgiveness, they mostly used the Hebrew calender back then, which was really very different that our modern day system, as I understand it, months and years could be flexible somehow anyway. Do we have to argue about this? Homestarmy 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Homestarmy, this 25 December article doesn't acquire just a Christian audience. Just because the dating system was "not particularly biblical" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to post the most accurate information possible. It is a good idea to attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether Exiguus historically meant for Christ to have been born in 1 BC or AD 1. I'm pretty sure it's 1 BC so that's what I'm voting this page display. As for those who argue that using anno Domini targets only a Christian audience, the common Era also refers merely to the birth of Jesus yet simply masks that fact, therefore offends even more people, including Christians. 24.222.79.90 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I wasn't trying to say we shouldn't use BC because its not in the Bible, im simply saying that the BC/AD system was a result of man responding to the Bible on their own, it wasn't directly commanded that we should use that system. Of course, this doesn't mean I want BCE, I think the whole BCE thing is really a conspiracy, but the point I was trying to make is before we get into a fight between 1 AD and 1 BC, we should remember its not a mind-bogglingly important issue we figure out which one is historial fact. Homestarmy 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Jesus was clearly around from the 25 March preceding his 25 December birthday, why wouldn't AD 1 start on the 25 March on which Gabriel announced to Mary that she was with child? jguk 08:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the English Calendar of the Middle Ages, 25 March is New Years

Why mention Christmas without Christ?

I am fully aware that the name "Jesus Christ" refers specifically to the Christian concept, and therefore represents a point of view. So then, why should a holiday created by people who worship Him not actually have reference to His name, when said holiday was created by people with a point of view as well? Can't say "Christmas" without "Christ" and whatnot. Besides, if the name Jesus is all that is there, with an encyclopedia as diverse as this is, you could be meaning the muslim definition of Jesus, the Hindu definition of Jesus, the historical revisionist/deletist view of Jesus, it isn't specific. The only religion in the entire world responsible for the creation of Christmas didn't just do it for any old interpretation of who Jesus was, they did it for Jesus Christ. What other major religions out there celebrate a Christmas about Jesus Christ while not actually being Christianity itself? Does anyone understand what im trying to say? :/ Homestarmy 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry starts with this sentence: "* Christmas Day is a Christian holiday on this day celebrating the Nativity of Jesus. " That makes the Christian origin abundantly clear. If the reader clicks on that first link, Christmas Day, they would find much more information on the Christian meaning of the day. Jonathunder 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But how is everybody supposed to know that Christians are celebrating a particular viewpoint on who Jesus is, not everybody knows that Christianity is about Jesus Christ, not just any old vauge definition of Jesus that other people might propose, nor does everybody who reads a wikipedia article click on every wikilink. What exactly is the worth of removing the word "Christ"? One would think with the word "Christian" the POV of the sentence is already made clear, so why must it end with less clarity POV wise? I don't see how NPOV necessarily should translate into lower clarity. Homestarmy 15:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If a user clicks on Jesus of Nazareth, they will shortly find that he is figure called Christ by Christians. A user, even one ignorant Jesus, could therefore use reason to grasp that Christmas relates to this figure. Mind you, a computer user ignorant of the existence of Jesus and Christmas strikes me as a rare creature indeed. In any event, if said user were too lazy or uninterested to click on either Jesus of Nazareth or Christmas Day, he will continue to be ignorant of Jesus by his choosing. If he is truly this out-of-touch with world culture, I see no benefit in giving another, more overtly religious name by which to know Jesus, thus confusing the user. The link between Christmas and Christ is not likely to be clear to such an obtuse hypothetical reading unless he clicks on something. In the meantime, while we worry about the one computer user who might not know at least an outline of who Jesus is, the name "Christ" is a plainly religious epithet, known to be considered POV by other world religions. In this case, the good of the many known non-Christians outweighs the good of the very few hypothetical users who can't figure Jesus of Nazareth out, and are also unwilling to click to further their learning. 64.157.32.1 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Christmas already overt enough to just go ahead and go the full mile? I mean it said "Jesus Christ" for a very long time I think before Thumbelina I think changed it. Homestarmy 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no generally accepted alternative names for that holiday. There are many generally accepted alternative names for the person. Those of us who prefer neutral language would, trust me, rather change the name of the holiday than refer to the person by his religious title; therefore, content yourself with this status quo, and consider it as a "glass half-full" solution for your point of view. The direct answer to your question is "No, just because WP must use one name of questionable neutrality in a case where there are no alternatives, it does not follow that WP should use less neutral language in all related cases." Not every leak must burst a dam. 64.157.34.149 19:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here. Is it possible there are two Christmas holidays - one secular and one non-secular... one involving Santa, presents, parties and no need to mention Christ, and the other involving celebrating Christ's nativity with a special mass (or church service)? Just thinking out loud here... Rklawton 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a notion with wide currency in social sciences and some Christian communities, who object to the commercialization of the day. Any expansion of that here would be highly speculative, however.

Separately, I do not see consensus here to remove Jesus from births altogether. While I confess, as a non-believer, that I fully concur that the chances of his nativity occurring on this day are about 1/365, I believe the tradional date deserves noting under Births. Unlike your speculation, speculation regarding 12.25 has an established history and the backing of churches. To note this is appropriate, and does not constitute and endorsement; rather it adds to a reader's understanding of the day. That a birthdate is tradition and uncertain does not prevent this mention being made, so long as it is annotated. I do concur that similar mention needs to be made on January 6, and any other day with wide support among major churches. I will now revert to include. Lastly, RKLawton, as a fellow skeptic, I'd urge you to let the birth stay. We have a happy equilibrium of neutral langauge here -- removing the birth altogether is provocative, I think, and leaves the encyclopedia incomplete, as least to my eyes, and I am no friend of the Christians. 64.157.34.149 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that letting it stand would "keep the peace" (my interpretation). However, it reflects a minority POV that suggests that this is a western Christian encyclopedia with special POV exceptions for "members only." On a separate note, I am a believer, and I believe that the New Testament makes no reference to date and a reference to year that makes it clear the year wasn't 1 BCE. In conclusion, I won't revert (as per policy). I am satisfied that I have made my point. I also appreciate your thoughtful discussion. Rklawton 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's totally true that we don't know exactly when Jesus was born, but the traditional birth date is the basis for our entire dating system, why should this be removed? We don't know the exact birthdates of many historical figures, and while Jesus's birthday might be even more abstract than most, considering His traditional birthday was responsible for so much, and considering the issues that happened over this article in the past, what's the point in trying to stir up the hornets nest? Homestarmy 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was born in AD 1, not BC 1

According to traditional Christianity, the birth of Jesus was in AD 1. The term "The year of the Incarnation" is sometimes used in older Papal bulls, encyclicals and the like instead of "Anno Domini" or "The year of Grace". Also, the reason the English used to celebrate New Years on 25 March is because the Church celebrates the Incarnation on that day, which is the day that the AD dating system supposedly begins. StThomasMore 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was "traditionally" born in 1 BC (BTW, the "BC" comes after the year), not 1 CE as per your suggestion. The Church celebrates the incarnation on 25 March because it is 9 months prior to 25 December, the traditional date of birth of Jesus. Jesus, according to the 1 BC article (and most historians) was born (traditionally) on 25 December 1 BC, thus making 1 CE the first year "In the year of (the) Lord". If he was born 25 December 1 CE, then the year 2 CE would be the first year "of the Lord", because there are then only 6 days remaining in the year 1 CE. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jesus was, in Western Christian tradition, concieved on 25 March AD 1, which is, as I said, why the British formerlly celebrated New Years on that day, it was the day the AD system bgean. Since Jesus Christ was concieved 25 March AD 1, he was born on 25 December AD 1, not 25 December 1 BC. Also, I don't know why you are correcting me on the placement of the letters BC, seeing as I did not use that term in my last comment.

Do you have a source that explains that Jesus was conceived on 25 March, 1 CE? Academics mostly agree that Jesus' birth is traditionally placed at 25 December, 1 BC. As for the BC placement, your quote: "Jesus was born in AD 1, not BC 1". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CHRISTIAN ERA

Foremost among these is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living. This was introduced about the year 527 by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk resident at Rome, who fixed its starting point in the year 753 from the foundation of Rome, in which year, according to his calculation, the birth of Christ occurred. Making this the year 1 of his era, he counted the years which followed in regular course from it, calling them years "of the Lord", and we now designate such a date A.D. (i.e. Anno Domini). The year preceding A.D. 1 is called Ante Christum (A.C.) or Before Christ (B.C.). It is to be noted that there is no year O intervening, as some have imagined, between B.C. and A.D. It is supposed by many that the calculation of Dionysius was incorrect, and that the birth of Christ really occurred three years earlier than he placed it, or in the year of Rome 753 which he styles 3 B.C. This, however, is immaterial for the purposes of chronology, the first year of the Christian Era being that fixed, rightly or wrongly, by Dionysius. His system was adopted but gradually, first in Italy, then in other parts of Christendom. England would appear to have been among the earliest regions to have made use of it, under the influence of the Roman missioners, as it is found in Saxon charters of the seventh century. In Gaul it made its appearance only in the eighth, and its use did not become general in Europe until after A.D. 1000; accordingly in French the term millésime was frequently used to signify a date A.D. In Spain, although not unknown as early as the seventh century, the use of the Christian Era, as will presently be shown, did not become general until after the middle of the fourteenth century.

-from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm#christian) StThomasMore 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From "Dionysius Exiguus" (Wikipedia article):

"Ever since the second century, some bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch — Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. Most have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a year zero). Because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and Nativity in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables.". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Until I find further evidence, I will let it be 1 BC. Happy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs)

Also—and you agree as per your edits at 25 March—Jesus died (traditionally) in 33 CE, and tradition also maintains that he was 33 years old at death... this would mean that he was born on 25 December, 1 BC (traditionally), unless he died sometime between 25 December and 31 December, 33 CE. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so all of the Biblical scholars who place Jesus' birth between 6 and 4 BC are, like, wrong, StThomasMore? That Dennis the Short screwed up in his calculations (admitted and then dismissed out of hand by the Catholic Encyclopedia) doesn't matter? It must be really neat to be able to just toss aside evidence not in agreement with dogma -- but hey, if the facts don't fit get new facts, right? And of course, while December 25 may be the "traditional" date (beginning in the mid-fourth century CE), it's certainly not a historical date, now is it? And it's not like December 25 had any meaning to pagans who worshipped Mithra or Sol Invictus, other than that it was their high holy day, thus creating a really neat way to say to them, "See your god is our god, and our god can be your god if you just join us" -- INHOCSIGNOVINCES* and all that.

*The myth regarding that message is rather ironical: Constantine, who grew up entirely in the East, knew no Latin but rather spoke Greek, thus the message as reported would have meant nothing to him -- in fact, had he taken the letters to be Greek at first glance, he might've thought it was really bad Greek for "in the dawn". On the other hand, since that myth grew out of Western Christianity where Latin was King, the message couldn't very well have been in Greek, now could it?

But, I digress -- the date as related to Jesus really belongs in events, AND it should carry the historical y.o.b. of Jesus, not the dogmatic y.o.b. Believe it or not, the Church is occasionally wrong -- see Galileo for example. •Jim62sch• 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Impending Edit War

With the recent increasing reversions and a difference in opinion as to whether the birth of Jesus should be noted at this article, I can sense another edit war in this article. Before we get to this point, I think we should talk it out here. I believe Jesus' birth should be noted here, either in Events, Births, or both. Dionysius Exiguus placed the birth of Jesus at 25 December (or at least the date of his incarnation on 25 March) in 525 CE/AD and this is an historical event worth noting. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it is a significant event, an EXTREMELY significant event, (and I, by the way, am Catholic) since it is a birth, it should probably be exclusively in the births. StThomasMore 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert again and I will block you for edit warring. I have warned you on God, I have warned you on your talk page. Cease this disruptive behavior. Discuss changes on Talk and only after you have achieved considerable support, preferably consensus, should the edits be made. Do not revert when multiple editors are disagreeing with you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, as the date is not historical, the item belongs in events. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire point is that the date is not historical, thats why the birthdate is supposed to say "Traditional date" or "Traditionally accept date" or whatever. Homestarmy 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Post preferred versions here for straw poll? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Jesus mentioned in "Births"

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

1. Though Jesus was born ca. 8–4 BC, traditional date should be acknowledged here (with disclaimer) as the actual date is otherwise unknown — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above user (for once!). He is traditionally said to have been born on this day and that should be mentioned, as should the fact that the exact date is unknown. Christmas Day should still be listed under holidays, of course. Thumbelina 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Ego agreo StThomasMore 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus mentioned in "Events"

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

Keep mention under "Holidays and observances" only

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

1. Birth is disputed; birth date is disputed; the event is the birth and/or holiday. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Convenit inter nos. (Ego agreo? What the hell is that?) •Jim62sch• 22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   You're the Latin scholar, not me. According to the online Latin translator[1], it means "I [am] rustic" where rustic can also mean cloddish, wild, unmannered, or boorish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   There's an online Latin translator? Oh well, it sucks -- agreo would be either dative or ablative singular of agreus (which is not now, nor has it ever been, a word), but, even if it were a word, using ego would make as much sense as carrying an umbrella in a hurricane. •Jim62sch• 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   sorry, I didnt know the latin word for agree... so I made something up. BTW, this is StThomasMore but I don't want to sign my signature because I'me not voting for "Keep mention of 'Holidays and observances' Only."

Traditional Date....

After December 25, was written "Traditonal date according to Exegius". Now, that may be true, but more importantly it is the traditonal date in all Western Christianity (i. e. Catholicism and Protestanitsm). Now, in Eastern Orthodoxy, and I think also on some Eastern Catholic calendars, the date of Christ's birth is celebrated sometime in January, so I think it should be clear that it is only the traditional date in Western Christianity. Dionysus Exegius was not the first to suggest that Christmas was on 25 December. In the West, Christmas has been celebrated on that date since at least AD 400. StThomasMore 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to several sources (including this one [2] from James A. Veitch, Professor of Religious Studies, Victoria University of Wellington) Exiguus' calculations included a serious error, even accounting for the fact that he worked forward from a presumed conception of March 25, based on the idea that God created the world on March 25 and wouldn't have created his offspring on any other day. The problem is that Jesus (according to the Biblical book of Matthew) was born while Herod was still King. Jesus had to have been born in or before 4 b.c.

Does anyone have any source for Jesus birth? At all? If so, please put your cites here for consideration and discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really, really think you're misunderstanding all of this. We all know that Jesus was most definitely not born anywhere near 25 December 1 BC, the correct date was earlier, circa 8–4 BC. This is why we are affixing a disclaimer to the entry, citing the traditional origin of the entry. It is clearly verified in the disclaimer that the date of 25 December, 1 BC is not the actual birthdate of Jesus, but he is such a popular and significant historical figure that a tribute to his birth should be included at the one place where an exact date has been estimated, which is 25 December. Over 2 billion people in the world celebrate Jesus' birth on this very date, and almost the entire world bases their calendar on the "traditional" 1 BC birthdate. This is definitely worth a note on this page. I can understand if we move this tribute to his birth to the "Events" section, but we shall definitely not eradicate it completely from the article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really, really think I'm not misunderstanding that. For two days now there has been edit warring over a date that all of us (I think) except StThomasMore agree is basically wrong or a lucky guess, there not being a hospital birth certificate available. That's not even close to the point. The point is the edit warring. Don't do it. Discuss here your reasoning and provide cites to support your preferred phrasing on the entry. WP:CON, remember? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need citations. We are basing this entry on traditional (though non-accurate) sources and we explain this in the disclaimer. We don't need to cite sources for the fact that the birth of Jesus is celebrated "traditionally" on 25 December, and that his year of birth is traditionally placed in 1 BC because that is what we get when counting down from 2006. Whether his birth was actually placed at 1 BC or 1 CE is somewhat disputed, but scholars generally agree 1 BC. Putting "December 25, 8-4 BC" cannot be done because the "25 December" DOB is tied to the anno Domini calendar's "1 BC" YOB so we'd be mixing accuracy with traditional views. Placing a citation for an inaccurate date is absurd because we know the date is inaccurate, but we also know it's traditional and commonly associated with the birth of Jesus. According to the current poll above, we are currently leaning toward having his mention in the "Births" section, so a possible compromise would be to include a secondary disclaimer of "his actual birthdate is estimated at 8-4 BC". — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)Are you joking? One can locate "traditional sources" to back up every single version being inserted, edited, and changed in the edit war. We don't need citations? I beg to differ. Please re-familiarize yourself with WP:V. Here is the summary: On 18 June 2006:

• 1 BC - Jesus, central figure of Christianity (traditional dating) (d. circa 33)
• Changed to AD 1 - Jesus Christ, God the Son in Christianity, (Catholic and Protestant dating) (d. circa 33) [3] by StThomasMore.
• Changed back by me, STM changes back to his preferred version, CrazyInSane changes back... Jim removed from Births and states in his edit summary that (Jesus was not born on Dec 25, the date was selected to align with Mathraic tradition and the religion of Aurelian, based on Sol Invictus, real dob prob mid-summer 4-6 BC), then Homestarmy reverted back to the pre-StThomasMore wording, then CrazyInSane changed to *1 BC - Jesus, central figure of Christianity (traditional dating) (d. circa 33), Jim removed citing WP:V, StThomasMore inserted his version again, CrazyInSane moved to Events * 1 BC - According to traditional dating and Christmas celebrations, Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, was born on this day in Bethlehem. there was some minor editing of the Events entry, Whugotit22 put it back in Births (leaving the Events) as * AD 1 - Jesus Christ, thought to be the son of God in Christianity (traditional Catholic and Protestant date), StThomasMore removed it from Events, edited the Births entry back to his preferred version... are we seeing a pattern here? This is an edit war. You cannot simply state your position and consider the matter settled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry, Crazy, but this makes absolutely no sense, "...that his year of birth is traditionally placed in 1 BC because that is what we get when counting down from 2006". We already know the Dennis the Short screwed up the calendar by at least 4 years, so the counting backward bit gives a false answer, thus rendering the formula you propose valueless.

Second, the date, as it is a made-up date, belongs in events, not in births. I was trying to avoid an edit war by placing disclaimers in there, but since the disclaimers are problematic for some, I'm going to stick with my opinion (which has not changed) that it belongs in Events, or in a "Religion" category.

PS -- I can think of nearly 4 billion people for whom this statement does not apply: "...and almost the entire world bases their calendar on the "traditional" 1 BC birthdate." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By "Religion" do you mean the "Holidays and observances" section? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding ...Jackpot!!!!!! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to add your name to the straw poll CrazyInSane started above, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Polls are evil &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)