Talk:Christmas

A simple fix for someone who can edit this article: commemorates the birth of Jesus, the birth of Jesus, the Douglasburgeson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

there is a "the the" on this page syk0saje (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

reliable sources

Why is this tag here? 71.84.34.253 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. (December 2010)

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 North 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)

This sentence is incorrect either way "Korea" is represented (South only or Korea as a whole). If "Korea" indicates South Korea only, it's incorrect because Christianity is a major religion in South Korea. If it indicates both South and North Korea, it's also incorrect since North Korea does not celebrate Christmas at all. —Preceding unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.123.195 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"the temporary promotion of the Christmas period as Winterval by Birmingham City Council in 1998." Winterval was the name of a city council initiative to enable retailers to maximise the opportunites in the run up to Christmas and the sales of the New Year. It was never an attept to change the name or form of Christmas in anyway. It was incorrectly described so by reactionary right wing newspapers and journalists looking for an easy story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.210.235 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (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)

It is the same way in most Latin American countries. There may be more, but I do not know for a fact. It should definitely be mentioned that there are different ways Christmas is celebrated. One note, technically, in the countries I mentioned, gifts are opened on the 25th, as they wait until midnight on the 24th, which is the 25th. Anyway, you know where I'm going... It is on Christmas Eve... Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (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)

There is an elaborate article on Christmas Eve which mentions various traditions by region and denomination, including gift-giving practices in many European countries on December 6th, Saint Nicholas Day, and December 24th, Christmas Eve. Perhaps a number of paragraphs can be brought into the Christmas article to point out that many view Christmas Eve as the highlight of Christmas. Fwbeck (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas, the non-christian holiday

Would it be such a big deal to acknowledge the simple fact that Christmas is celebrated by more than just Christians, and that it is a secular holiday all over the world. At the end of the day, the christmas tree, Santa, and many more traditions predate christianity! DasKaptain (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Just checked the history of the article and found something quite humorous and interesting... my original revamp edit to the article in November 2009 actually used the exact quote "Although nominally a Christian holiday", but somehow it was changed since then. I honestly didn't recall having used that wording until just now—I must have subconsciously suggested it above.— CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think nominally brings us close enough for me to let the case rest for now. But I maintain that: The sources in the opening sentences confirm that Christmas is NOT JUST a "Christian" holiday. I have shown this repeatedly and no tenable counter arguments were ever given. AlexFekken (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "nominally" as the word clearly implies it is a Christian holiday in name only, which is clearly not true, as almost all Christians celebrate it as part of being a Christian. Even if other people celebrate it for reasons besides being a Christian doesn't mean it's not a Christian holiday. I know non-Mexicans who celebrate Cinco de Mayo for various reasons but that wouldn't make it a nominally Mexican holiday. Just label it as a Christian holiday, which it clearly is.Roy Brumback (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such "clear implication", but that is ONE[1] usage of the word. "Literally" or "etymologically" could substitute. To say that "Christmas IS a Christian holiday" would be to overlook the many Xmas traditions that are not Xn, and the many non-Xn celebrations that are part of this solstice holiday.--JimWae (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, you really need to reach some sort of consensus here before making an edit that was thoroughly discussed. I'm switching it back. If you can get more support through discussion, then a change may be warranted, but until then, you shouldn't make this change all by yourself.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is worded carefully to avoid reference that Christmas is a "Christian holiday", as general consensus has been reached that even though Christmas is notable foremost as the marking of Jesus' birth, it is not a wholly Christian holiday and thus is not to be defined as such here. In the second paragraph, which is in question, the term "nominally" has been chosen to avoid this wholly Christian label. The first sentence of the second paragraph is meant to contrast the fact that although Christmas is "Christian in name at least", many modern non-Christians still celebrate the holiday. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary, CIS. Just to add to it...I think the intro clearly acknowledges the "Christianity" of Christmas. Nobody is trying to downplay the fact that Christmas is deeply associated with Christianity (and Christ). What we are trying to do is show that this is not exclusively a Christian holiday. I think that any neutral reader would be able to see that the Christian components of the holiday are quite notable and well represented in the article, as are the non-Christian components. As a paralell, when talking about Jesus, one may be tempted to indicate that he can be exclusively defined as the Christ according to Christians. That may be true, but he is more than the Christ. He was a Muslim prophet, an apocalyptic rabbi, a historical figure, etc. To a Christian, it may be clear that Jesus' role as Christ is his most important characteristic, but that would not be a neutral point of view to everyone (specifically, non-christians). Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry guys, Christmas is by 'definition' the celebration of Jesus' birth. If you're only celebrating gift giving or big dinners on Dec 25th, but not celebrating Jesus' birth, you are not celebrating Christmas. And you don't have to actually be a Christian to celebrate Jesus' birth, so you can celebrate Christmas without being a Christian, but that doesn't then make the celebration "nominally" Christian, which is the only word I object too. I don't advocate putting "wholly" in there either, or any other qualifier. Just call it a Christian holiday, which it is, and then say other people celebrate it too, which is fine. No qualifiers needed. Nominally can clearly imply, as it does in most modern usages, that something is that in name only, which is clearly misleading in this case so not only is it an unnecessary qualifier but a poor one as well.Roy Brumback (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by 'definition', but not by definition! I had to go to the fifth entry here to find a reference that did NOT include a non-christian definition: http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=Christmas. But of course you can continue to ignore the fact that most dictionaries appear to include both christian and secular definitions. Of course, the situation may be different if you only have access to christian 'dictionaries'. AlexFekken (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have suggested this before but it wasn't picked up. Most of the reliable sources that I have seen and mentioned give both christian and secular definitions of Christmas. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is regarding this but what is wrong with having different definitions of the same word? A lot of the discussion seems to originate simply from the attempt to combine multiple inconsistent and verifiable definitions into one. Even in mathematics the same word can mean different things to different people, so why not here? AlexFekken (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex, where exactly are these sources? Can you list them so we can discuss and review their potential implications on the opening sentence/paragraph of the article?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Roy Brumback. Christmas is a Christian holiday although others celebrate it as well. Easter is also a Christian holiday as well, despite the fact that some non-Christians may choose to celebrate Easter by painting chicken eggs and organizing egg hunts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, Nobody here will deny that Christmas is a Christian holiday, the thing is, it is also not a Christian holiday all at the same time. In order to remain neutral and objectively factual, Christmas must be presented as a holiday with multiple notable definitions. As for Easter, there is another artice on that so I won't go into any more detail than to say that Easter is very deeply rooted in pagan customs and is even named after a pagan goddess. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

CIS, again? I just checked and the evidence itself hasn't gone away. This includes the dictionary entry referred to by the article itself (Merriam-Webster) and that I have mentioned several times before, as well as several other dictionary entries here http://www.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/dofind.cgi?word=Christmas and that I referred to only a couple of paragraphs above. AlexFekken (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Merry Christmas" in different languages

(| Class = "wiki table" | - ! Language! Merry Christmas

Lead

WP:Consensus can change Regardless of the calendar's both celebrating "december 25," wikipedia uses one calendar for dates and on the wikipedia calendar Orthodox Christmas falls on Jan 6/7 which needs to be stated because the article is thus POV and doesnt have a globalized view. As for stating it in the infobox it wont be confusing (instead informative) when the caveat Wetern/Eastern/Armenian is added. It may well be detailed in the article (which is poorly sourced) but the point of the WP:Lead is to summarize the content and the content does include the differences.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "held either on December 25, January 6 or January 7" won't do. It's not a moveable feast, it is a fixed date: December 25 on whatever calendar is being used--JimWae (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your addition of "religious"; this goes against current consensus that the holiday is both religious and secular. Also, I've reverted your History/Celebration swap for two reasons: (1) there is consensus to keep the "Celebration" section first and (2) I would ask that you please do such an edit separate from any other POV-removing edits so we can clearly see all the exact diffs. I've also removed your addition of "(Western Christianity)" attached to December 25 in the infobox, because Christmas is also celebrated on December 25 (of the Gregorian calendar) secularly, i.e. without Christianity. I agree with Jim in that only December 25 should be mentioned in the lead paragraph to minimize confusion and because the actual date of intended celebration has always been December 25; we don't need to open the can of worms about the Julian/Gregorian calendar issues in the intro paragraph. Consensus has been to leave the January 6/7 dates in the infobox only. Perhaps we can add a reference/note after "December 25" in the lead paragraph, but I don't think we should include the January dates. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 09:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(just lost an edit conflict, trying to readd what i had)

wikipedia has one calendar listed (it doesnt nor should it have various articles), and this is a "christmas" holiday, not "gregorian december 25" page. the issue of a gregorian/julain calendar doesnt arise (other than the article details to account for the difference) because wikipedia doesnt use both systems to refer to dates. (there are also 2 calendars and 3 dates, which accounts for some difference.) if there is WP:Undue prominence given to 1 date and 1 sect then the globalized tag must go up because it certainly doesnt reflect a worldwide view while limited to a (Western) eurocentric bias. maybe the "...or..." tag is not appropriate, an accomodation can be come to. Somethign tot he effect that "Christmas is a holiday to celebrate the birth..." Followed in the next sentence by "It is celebrated by some/Western Christianity on December 25, in the Eastern Orthodoxy on January 7, and in the Armenian Church on January 6." Or agreed to variations thereof.

for the consensus that it is not a religious order, WP:Consensus can change. For the assertion that it is not a religious holiday, i fail to see how a holiday that "celebrates the birth of Christ" is not a religious holiday? Maybe the caveat that is has come to be celebrated by many non-christians, but it is a religious holiday (heck, why would nativity scenes on public property even come close to violation the Establishment clause if that was the reason)

Anyway, im not reverting this till consensus, but reverting "celebration" above "history" was done without a reason simpyl saying "move them seperately so the differences can be seen" ive done that now. And the background/history sections always come first to lead the main article onwards.Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the section swap, my only concern was the visibility of changes in the diffs. Anyway, back to the main issue of the December 25/January 7 dates in the lead paragraph. The second sentence of this article goes into detail about the reason behind the December 25 date chosen as Christmas Day. As has been discussed before, if we include the January 6 and January 7 dates in the lead, it's going to defeat the purpose of explaining the reasoning behind the Catholic Church having chosen "December 25" as the date of celebration. I have set up a potential compromise using a WP:REFGROUP at my sandbox here: User:CrazyInSane/sandbox. Let me know what you think about it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 10:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the move of the lengthy History section to the top of the article. This was discussed last year, and it was agreed that the article is primarily to tell people about what Christmas is NOW, what people do and what it stands for. That is what the majority of readers are looking for - not a lengthy recitation of fringe theories about winter festivals and so forth. that material, and the later history of the festival, belongs in the article, but not as the first thing that readers see.

On the issue of the dates, we probably do need to explain in the lead that some Christians celebrate on 6th/7th january, but probably not in the first sentence or two. Perhaps a sentence could be added at the end of paragraph 1 or 2 stating that because of calendar changes some Christians celebrate on different modern calendar dates. Xandar 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Per CrazyInSane, I dont see why the purpose of the reasoning behind the choice is defeated, sure the details are still relevant whatever it maybe, but it is still deceptive to say December 25 as the be all and all date for Christmas celebrations (how come Jan 6/7 are different though?) i dont see where the compromise is on that page, can you point it out? How about taking the date out of the first sentence alltogether and then adding another brief to a para in the lead about the various dates? Its not that "some christians" celebrate it to mention, it is a large part of the christian populace outside the western sphere that does so, and the article can't take sides. I'm not updating this till consensus because we are still discussing, the globalize tag just draws more opinions to the talk facility to enhance the conversation.

per Xandar, see the conversation above WP:Consensus can change Who is to say most readers want to here about "now." As an encyclopaedia wikipedia has to explain the history and the definitions, etc. There are no "fringe" theories because someone doesnt like it, if it is sourced and it is encyclopaedic then it warrants its place here. The Background/history is an intro into the article.

also there was an arguement below about "nominally a Christian holiday" might want to see that. Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears JimWae has taken the liberty of implementing what I had proposed in my sandbox example. December 25 is mentioned in the lead, with a citation note that links to a lengthy explanation near the bottom of the page. I support this format. With the revelation that some Armenian churches also celebrate on January 19, the issue is much too extensive to include in the lead. In order for us to explain the much more important origin of the December 25 date as the date for celebration, we must relegate the January 6/7/19 dates to a citation note. As for the History/Celebration chronological issue, I think that ultimately the "History" section should always come first in an article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lihass. Can you stop making major reorganisations without discussion or consensus! There is no agreement to move the extremmely lengthy "history" section so that it overshadows the rest of the article. The history of Christmas and various obscure theories connected with it, as well as minutiae of its development in the USA are NOT more important than the facts about the festival itself. Your opinion notwithstanding. The process on Wikipedia is to discuss and reach agreement before making controversial changes to articles. Xandar 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, it's not his opinion, and it's not "minutiae" or "obscure" if he is using valid sources. All of his edits are factually correct, the question here is which edits are most germain to the article and where to put these edits. As your comments throughout this article and discussion seem to oppose any secular content, one might come to the conclusion that you are the one letting opinions cloud what should be an objective editing process. It is a fact that Christmas evolved (and still evolves) from a robust history of secular and religious observations, symbols and behaviors. We cannot talk fully about Christmas without all of this. I welcome Lihass' edits, but share others' concerns about how to incorporate them. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clyntong, 28 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section headed History / Middle Ages, the end of the papraraph reads 'changed from December 6 to Christmas Eve'. It should read 'changed from January 6 to Christmas Eve'.

I believe this to be a simple error, and the change makes the text internally consistent. January 6 is, of course, the date of Epiphany, when Christians exchanged gifts. (6 December has no particular religious significance.)

Clyntong (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: It is sourced, which lends it credence. Moreover, 6 December is the feast of St Nicholas, when many Christians did (and do) give gifts. Even more credence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the origins of the 'traditional' christmas symbols

The holly and ivy were fertility symbols of pagan origin during Modranecht (Night of the Mother, followed by Day of the Child, or feast of lights). The same goes for Mistletoe. Holly and Ivy were also used in Greek Mythology, Holly being representative of the male and Ivy for the female. (see The dancer and Dionysus in Greek Mythology)

Also, the origin of exchanging gifts. As part of modranecht a fir tree would be uprooted from the nearest glen and decorated in red bows and statues as effigies of varying gods and goddesses of the pagan faith. Candles would be lit in the tree and a 5 pointed star placed on top. Gifts of fruit and other offerings would be made to the effigies in the tree.

As Modranecht was the night of the mother followed by the day of the child, it became pagan tradition to offer gifts to the children of the household as well as to the pagan gods and goddesses.

The origin of the word Christmas is a contradiction in itself. To put the 'holy name' of the Christian Messiah with the Pagan name for celebration (Mass) was originally deemed sacreligious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.229.160 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Christmas and Yule and Jul

In Scandinavia, Christmas has a long history, but the word we use is Jul (pronounced exactly like Yule). Note that it is the same tradition, only with a different name. If you wanted to translate a Swedish article about Jul for instance, the correct translation would be Christmas, not Yule. What we celebrate is a mixture of pagan traditions, secular winter celebrations, christian traditions as well as more modern "commercial" ideas, much like in English speaking countries. Considering that, I think the opening in this article is waaay too simplified, because it's clear that Christmas doesn't have a single, simple origin, but is rather a mixture of many different winter traditions (old and new). Just because Christianity has given Christmas its English name doesn't mean that the complex phenomenon "Christmas" should be described as "a holiday [...] to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity." I think the opening of this article absolutely should be rewritten to reflect this complex nature of Christmas, with the manifold traditions that form the holiday. For instance I think Santa Claus, itself a character with origins as complex as Christmas, is intimately connected to most people's views of the holiday, yet it's a figure that in it's current form clearly has next to nothing to do with the birth of Jesus or any other aspect of Christianity. 83.250.53.18 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here at the talk page, you can sift through the archives to check out some of the earlier discussions. The current consensus regarding the introductory paragraph is that our definition for Christmas needs to be first and foremost about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Why? Sources. Wikipedia does not "make up its own mind" about subjects and ideas based on collective editor consensus, we follow what outside sources say about something, and give our own touch while staying in line with what the aforementioned sources note. Almost all notable and reliable sources define Christmas as a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus. The other aspects of the holiday, as well as the fact that many non-Christian elements and people are involved with Christmas, are mentioned in great detail both the second paragraph of the introduction and the remainder of the article.

You'll also notice that we avoid labeling the holiday a "Christian holiday" in the opening paragraph, instead opting to refer to it as "nominally a Christian holiday" in the second paragraph. Consensus for this was reached last year, and is based on the fact that reliable sources citing the non-Christian celebrants and non-Christian elements about Christmas allow us to remove the strict label of it being a Christian holiday. The main definition for the holiday concerning Jesus, however, cannot be changed unless a myriad of reliable sources define it as being foremost something other than the celebration of Jesus' birth. If you can collect such sources and present them here, the community will gladly review them and discuss the issue. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Two different biblical nativity stories

If we are going to cite biblical nativity stories in this article, we should remember that Matthew and Luke do not tell the same story, although some important common elements exist. There is a tendency common in secular and Christian traditions to lump both stories together, essentially creating a third story that exists nowhere in the Bible or any other ancient source. When I read the nativity account in this article, I think the authors did a great job of managing this by focusing on common traditions rather than biblical sources. Still, the biblical sources are mentioned, so I felt it necessary to point the differing sources out rather than leave the reader with the impression that there is one biblical birth story.

If you read Matthew and Luke’s accounts of the birth story, you will see what I mean. Was Jesus living in Bethlehem at the time or just visiting? Was he born in a house or in a manger outside an inn? Did the Magi visit him or did shepherds visit? Was there a star? Was there a census? Did Herod order the slaying of all children under 2 years of age? Was there another baby (a famous cousin of Jesus) born from Immaculate Conception before Jesus? After the birth, did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt for fear of infanticide or simply return back to their Egyptian home? How did Mary conceive Jesus…was God Jesus’ father? If you read both Gospels, you will see that each give a different answer to these important questions. Clearly, each author had a different story to tell about Jesus’ birth. They both make a point that the birth happened in Bethlehem, that the birth was important enough that angels announced it in some way and that Jesus found his way to Egypt some time after his birth. I made a very small edit indicating that the nativity stories in the bible differ from each other. I resisted the urge to say that they VASTLY differ from each other. Since the nativity section in the article mostly focuses on actual traditions rather than biblical sources for these traditions, I think there is little else that should be changed here. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot make the analysis on your own that the accounts are differing. That is considered "original research." You need a source that explicitly states that the accounts are differing per WP:SYNTH. You may reinsert the word "differing" if you can find a scholarly source that says this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not original research. If you look at the Nativity of Jesus article it discusses both accounts.MightyAtom (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I apologize for asuming you have actually read these two gospels. I can see how this might come across as original research to anyone unfamiliar with sacred Christian texts. I provided a source (one of the most notable textual critics and New testament experts in the world). Now you can see these are not my ideas. This should settle the matter, but if not, there are many more sources available. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me a credible source that indicates the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are the same story. You will find no such source. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very few of the differences you mention involve actual contradiction between the two accounts, though. It's really not unreasonable to describe the nativity accounts in the gospels as different tellings of the same story, with each version including some parts of the story and omitting others. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to press your point of view here because you are only presenting one point of view. If you go to the Nativity of Jesus article, you will also see that some scholars state that the accounts do not contradict one another. To be neutral, we must present both views on the Nativity or none. For now, I am removing the word "differing" from the selection. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

...but my citation is credible and notable and should stand. Add your own statement of you want to show a different take on this. better yet, explain here why these are the same two stories. I'd like to see how anyone can reconcile these very different stories. I spelled out above why these stories are different, now you should do the same to show why they are the same. Reconcile the differences I pointed out above before you edit my contribution. I agree that certain, very important, parts of these stories are similar, but the remaining details are impossible to describe as the same story. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Jesus living in Bethlehem at the time or just visiting? What do you mean? Was he living at Bethlehem at the time of his birth? Possibly. Luke has Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem for a specific reason (to be taxed); Matthew doesn't say why they were in Bethlehem. No actual contradiction there as far as I can see. Was he born in a house or in a manger outside an inn? Luke has Jesus being laid in a manger (not "born in a manger"); Matthew gives no details about where Jesus was born or where he was laid immediately after his birth. All Matthew says is that by the time the Magi arrived in Bethlehem, the family was in some kind of a house. No contradiction there. Did the Magi visit him or did shepherds visit? Luke mentions the shepherds; Matthew mentions the magi. Neither of them says that Jesus received only one set of visitors, so this is not a contradiction either. Was there a star? Luke doesn't mention the star, but that doesn't mean much of anything. (Shepherds would have less reason to pay attention to the locations of the stars than magi would.) Was there a census? Luke says so; Matthew doesn't mention it. This is a difference of detail but not a contradiction. Did Herod order the slaying of all children under 2 years of age? Was there another baby (a famous cousin of Jesus) born from Immaculate Conception before Jesus? After the birth, did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt for fear of infanticide or simply return back to their Egyptian home? Again, these are differences of detail, not contradictions. (Incidentally, does Luke mention Egypt at all? I suppose you mean Nazareth, not Egypt--Matthew does suggest that Joseph first chose Nazareth as a dwelling place after coming back from Egypt, whereas Luke says that Joseph and Mary's home was in Nazareth to begin with. This is contradiictory.) How did Mary conceive Jesus…was God Jesus’ father? Both Matthew and Luke describe Jesus as having been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit when Mary was still a virgin. I don't see how the descriptions are contradictory. Just because Luke describes the Annunciation and Matthew doesn't? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mising my point. You (206.208.105.129)said there were contradictions, not me. I simply said these are two different stories...and they are. The two authors chose to tell two different stories. Draw your own conclusions about their reasons for this. Maybe they were simply emphasizing different points or maybe these are plain contradictions. I make no judgement there. What I'm saying is these stories are not the same. Imagine two people describing the collapse of the Soviet Union. A U.S. citizen might tell the story one way while a Russian citizen might tell the story another way; emphasizing different points. It is possible for both to be factual yet completely different stories describing the same event. This is one possible explanation for the two differing stories about the birth of Christ. I happen to believe that it is very diffcult to reconcile these two biblical stories, but that't not the point I was making in my edit to the article. The two stories are different in very important ways. These are not the same two stories. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't just say that the stories differ; you said that you'd like to see how anyone can reconcile the differences between the two stories. In fact, it's no harder to reconcile most of the differences between the narratives than to reconcile the statement "Italy abuts France" with the statement "Italy abuts Austria" or the statement "air contains oxygen" with the statement "air is largely composed of nitrogen."

That said, I believe that the article should make it clear that the central facts of the nativity story are found in both gospel narratives: Jesus is conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; his mother is Mary, a virgin at the time of conception; her husband or affianced spouse is Joseph; Jesus is born in Bethlehem. I also think it's reasonable for the article to state that most of the specific details of the traditional nativity story (the Annunciation; the census/taxation; no room at the inn; the manger; the star; the magi; the shepherds; the Massacre of the Innocents) appear in Matthew or Luke but not both, and that in at least one detail (the question of whether Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth prior to Jesus's birth) the narratives actually contradict each other. Perhaps we can avoid taking an explicit position on the semantic/philosophical question of whether it all adds up to two different stories or two different versions of the same story. (We should, of course, also mention that some of the traditional details--like the number and names of the Magi--aren't in the gospel narratives at all.) 206.208.105.129 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Elielilamasabachthani is trying to push his Point of View by inserting the adjective "differing" before the word "accounts" in the article. There are several references that consider the accounts to be harmonious. Like you, 206.208.105.129, I think that we should be neutral and not take a position on the issue; as such, we should exclude the words "differing" or "harmonious." Nevertheless, as requested by User:Elielilamasabachthani, I have inserted references in the article to demonstrate that the account can be harmonized. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

...and Anupam is trying to push his/her POV by removing my citations and only showing one side of this issue. It is not neutral when you delete a credible perspective (which is held by tha majority of historians) and replace it with your own. My recent edit acknowledges both views. By the way, when did Herod die?Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Feast of the Nativity" from opening sentence.

Sorry for my American and non-religious bias, but I have never heard Christmas be called "Feast of the Nativity". I realize that the current wording says "originally" but there is no source. Doing a google search for "Feast of the Nativity" yields 920,000 hits, while Christmas gets over 420 million. It looks redundant and brings up the issue of not listing other old names for Christmas (Christ's Mass, Yule, etc.). This information sould be included (if there is a source) in the history section, not the opening sentence. Alek2407 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And many "feast of the Nativity" hits are for Mary & for John the Baptist. Even if it were sourced that this was the original name, it does not belong in the lede.--JimWae (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

christmas is a time of getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.55.201 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas December 24

Some countries celebrate Christmas December 24, e.g. Denmark. Is that not worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.22.68 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Language

It;s Christmas time not "Christmastime". N00bs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.203.46 (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statements with fake references

I have removed this section from the article:

The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian; and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin.(ref name="CathMithra")""Mithraism", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.(/ref)

The first problem is that the reference does not make this statement, as far as I could see. The next problem is that, as far as I know, no scholar holds this position. The *title* Sol Invictus was held by several deities, as the Sol Invictus article indicates. But the actual deity of that name does not appear until the 4th century. All this stuff seems irrelevant to the Christmas article in any event. I asked myself, what is the raw fact that we are contributing to a discussion of *Christmas* here? -- and I got the answer "none". Roger Pearse (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now checked the reference on the next statement also:

Emperor Elagabalus (218–222) introduced Sol-worship and the cult reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian.(ref)"Sol," Encyclopædia Britannica, Chicago (2006).(/ref)

The EB article in the Library edition of the Online EB does NOT say this. The EB article (which cannot be considered a reliable source because of its brevity and lack of references) says:

in Roman religion, name of two distinct sun gods at Rome. The original Sol, or Sol Indiges, had a shrine on the Quirinal... The worship of Sol assumed an entirely different character with the later importation of various sun cults from Syria. The Roman emperor Elagabalus (reigned AD 218–222) built a temple to him as Sol Invictus on the Palatine and attempted to make his worship the principal religion at Rome.

This is true; but the Wiki statement is not. Nor do I see what it has to do with Christmas. If true, it would belong to the Sol Invictus article. Roger Pearse (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christmas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LEAD

I will leave comments in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am unsure why Christmastide is mentioned in the WP:LEAD and Advent is not. Advent also seems to be one that should be included in the see also section. Also, since Christmastide is more commonly known as Twelve Days of Christmas or the Yuletide, these terms would be welcome in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Parallel structure is needed in this phrase: include gift-giving, music, an exchange of greeting cards, church celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations
  • Try either "include gift-giving, music, greeting card exchanges, church celebrations, special meals, and decorative displays" "include gift-giving, music, greeting card exchange, church celebration, special meal, and decorative display" or "include giving of gifts, celebration of music, exchange of greeting cards, celebration of faith, consumption of special meals, and display of various decorations" or something else in parallel structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Either each paragraph of the lead should be sourced with citations or all content in the lead should be uncited with references in the main body.

Etymology

• This section is a bit short to stand on its own.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Celebration

• I am a bit surprised that Midnight Mass is not mentioned in this section, but see that it has no distinct article. Any thoughts?
• I apologize, but I am now noticing extensive citation needed templates and numerous paragraphs that are devoid of citations. I am failing this article because it is in need of much further work in order to meet WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Typographical Error

Right before in-text citation 105 (after "organized boycotts of individual retailers") there is an extra period and a random quotation mark. These should be removed.

Done. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Edit War — Icon of Jesus vs. Nativity image

I am in favor of retaining the image of the icon of Jesus, (1) to provide variety as a depiction of the nativity is already present a few sections below, (2) because it is more relevant than an image of the nativity to a statement indicating that Jesus' birthdate is unknown in a section called "Date of celebration", (3) because Template:Christianity should probably be in this article, but it isn't, and I think the image of Jesus from that template suffices as an alternative. (If this image is rejected, I think we should put Template:Christianity into this article), and (4) because the holiday is regarding Jesus, and it is helpful to have an icon of him as an adult for variety rather than a redundant extra depiction of the nativity. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the section and the statement you want to insert is about Jesus' birth. That icon is irrelevant. I have no objection to inserting the Christianity template but it doesn't make sense to insert an irrelevant image because of a missing template. MCSKY (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My main argument for the retaining of the icon is for variety's sake and to add a different type of depiction of Jesus to the article. We already have a nativity image, so a second is redundant. As for your argument that the icon is not relevant, I don't see how it can't be. We are talking about the date for Jesus’ birth, and we already have an image of the nativity in the section about the celebration of his birth specifically, so how is a depiction of him later in life totally irrelevant to discussion about his birth date? Are you saying that in any other article with a large section about someone's birth, an image depicting them later in life is entirely irrelevant? Especially if there's already another image depicting their birth?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is about a holiday that commemorates Jesus' birth. Your argument that only one image of the nativity is to be included makes no sense. It's about providing the most relevant images, not providing as many different kinds of images as possible regardless of how relevant they are. MCSKY (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An image about a phone book would qualify as "not relevant" to Christmas. A depiction of Jesus, albeit later in life, would not. We disagree what qualifies as a relevant image, fine. Let's wait to see what others have to say about the issue. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Including a picture of Jesus later in life seems completely out of place in an article that is not about the life of Jesus. The article is about a holiday and images should be very closely related to the holiday. For example, it would make more sense to include a gallery of various national and historical depictions of Santa Clause/Father Christmas. Doc Tropics 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Include them both. I would not object to having five or six different depictions of the birth of Jesus. I don't think it's redundant to give multiple examples of how classical and modern artists have imagined the nativity. The icon is okay, too, and I agree that Template:Christianity should be in the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Different depictions of Jesus' birth and the nativity are not a problem, they are closely related aspects of the holiday. It's the unrelated image of Jesus "later in life" that doesn't belong in an article about the holiday. Regarding the Christianity template however, it does seem appropriate as a footer and there haven't been any strong objections to including it; most objections were to the image. Doc Tropics 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 objections to the icon image so far, with one in support of it and one indifferent to its inclusion. The reason I first added the image to the article was because it made a good fit with my caption, which was: "Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season". I added this caption because it is relevant to the "Date of celebration" section. I think it fits to have a later-life representation of Jesus in this context, as it is simply a statement about Jesus himself. Images of the nativity portray more than just Jesus himself, thus would not be appropriate to pictoralize such a caption. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel your statement needs to have a picture to go with it? An image of the nativity is related to the article, but the icon of Jesus is not. MCSKY (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that the caption of icon in the earlier version of the article ("Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season") was inappropriate as it presented a slant to the article that was unnecessary. To an individual who did not read further, it appears as if the caption was trying to discredit the holy day. If a caption for the icon is to be included, it should say something universal and major about Christmas such as "Christmas is the celebration of God coming into the world, in the form of man, so that He would eventually atone for the sins of humanity." That being said, I think that any image relating to the Christ Child would be the most relevant. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please capitalize "h" and "m" to change text to "Holy Mass." Thank you.

 Not done for now: I don't see why that should be capitalized since it's just showing the Latin translation. Please explain in more detail why you think that should be capitalized. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"BELIEF"...not "fact"

The last paragraph of the "Date of Celebration" section says the following...

"However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on the 25th of December is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian denominations;[21][22][23] rather, the fact that God came into the world, in the form of man, to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas.[21][22][23]"

It should say, "the BELIEF that God came into the world, in the form of man...."

Not FACT. Thank you. Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navid500 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You've made a good point about WP:NPOV. I've changed the word "fact" to "belief" per your suggestion. Thanks for noticing, Anupam^Talk 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The semantics are confusing here. The churches (i.e., believers) would say "the FACT that God came into the world" and the fact is the reason for the celebration. The article, of course, needs to be NPOV and shouldn't claim it to be "fact". The sentence should be rewritten for clarity on this point.--Albany45 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. How about this: "...rather, the the coming of God into the world in the form of a man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas." Christians aren't celebrating a belief; they believe, and so they celebrate. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That sentence looks very good. And I do agree with you last point. It may be important to note that in a way to keep it NPOV. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Utter garbage

Can someone dump the stupid religious goons off this page. This ridiculous nonsense now states Christmas day is in January for Catholics. Protestants are all very well but the idiotic fear of everyone else is pathetic. There are no magic invisible friends, religion is a distraction for the mentally damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Then stop celebrating Christmas ( which I am pretty sure you do). In fact, stop celebrating Halloween, Easter, Mardi Gras or many of those other holidays. While you are at it, stop following the constitution (I am pretty sure you are American) and any other moral principles you may have i.e. stealing, killing etc. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, all these come from this thing you call the distraction for the mentally damaged... Be grateful for the life you have, even as ignorant as it may be.

Proposed edits to the Gifts sections

While the Biblical Magi are mentioned in the Gift giving section, they are not mentioned in the Legendary gift-bringing figures section. In many European and Latin American countries, the Magi bring presents as well. This happens on the morning of January 6th. While this is not in the official day of Christmas, it is worth noting that in these countries the 'main' Christmas gifts are brought by the Magi, and only small presents are given to children by Santa Claus. This is done somewhat in order to 'comply' with the American celebration of Christmas, but nothing more. It seems to me that this is worth adding to the article, as its purpose seems to be to encompass the world-wide view of Christmas. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Christmas Date.

While noting that some Orthodox churches follow the Julian Calendar date of January 7th... These churches mentioned form the majority of Orthodox believers worldwide.... Such as the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Serbians and Old Calendar Greeks....This would be the majority. It is false to state that a majority of Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.125.181 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The point made above about most Orthodox churches around the world actually celebrating Christmas on the 7th of January is correct. However, in listing the Orthodox Churches, there is no mention of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is actually one of the largest and Original Orthodox Churches along with Egyptian and before the Georgian, Serbian, Russian etc churches. It is important to note this in the article mainly because Ethiopia is actually presented many times in the course of the bible as playing a significant role in Christianity (old testament: including in Jesus, Mary and Josephs passage) and reflects the originality of the Ethiopian churches observance of Jan 7th as the actual birth of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.208.224 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Low quality image in the infobox

The image File:Nativity tree.jpg used in the infobox looks 3rd rate at best, 4th rate in reality. It may look a little better enlarged, but looks "really shabby" as is. I am not going to advocate an alternative since I do not edit this page, but for Heaven's sake please get a better image. There are hundreds of images on Wikimedia commons. Whoever edits this page, please select a higher quality one, have a discussion, arrange a quick vote and replace it. It is Christmas, after all. Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've enlargened the image for the time being. The reason the current image is used in the infobox is because it mixes secular decorations and the nativity in one image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be used in the infobox, and this is a compromise. The previous compromise image was a collage, which in my opinion looked too artificial and ugly for the article. This image is more natural looking and isn't a composite. Let us know what you think of the enlargement. Otherwise, please suggest an alternative image, keeping in mind the compromise between secular and religious imagery. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I was just wondering; there are so many different symbols of Christmas, so instead of just having one picture, maybe someone could create a montage incorporating all of the symbols of Christmas. Examples would be the main image already there, a tree, Santa Clause, maybe a mistletoe. What does everyone think? Nations United (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. Have each picture appear in the part of the article it illustrates. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ruckabumpkus—montages are ugly IMO, and we are fine just placing any images of all the respective Christmas traditions in their respective sections within the article. The infobox used to have a montage pic, but it was removed because it was too contrived and ugly looking. The current picture is the best one we have available that mixes the secular and Christian imagery of the holiday in one single (natural) image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be in the infobox picture, and the only two possible compromises would be our current "natural mix" image (or a similar image), or a montage. I am personally against a montage picture. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. It seems that people don't like this idea, and I can see why. Nations United (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

christmas day

This page probably isn't going to be fully protected today like many pages are in similar situations. This is because, unlike me, most people have better things to do and are taking a break from normal activity which sadly today means being on the internet hence the page is not likely to be vandalized. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha I was right, almost nothing is happening today. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section is lacking in two respects. First, the suffix "-mas" means an arrival. While the word "mass" as used to mean the Catholic liturgies is derived similarly, Christmas does not mean Christ's Mass. Rather, it means Christ's arrival. Second, the etymology of the term Xmas does not inform the etymology of the term Christmas, and should be given its own section or page. (With regard to the etymology of the term Xmas, the Greek chi is substituted for the 'Christ-' part, because in Greek, the word Χριστός begins with chi. But since the Latin word for Christ is Christus, it's unlikely that the Roman X had any influence on the term Xmas.) Atozxrod (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section on chi, absent any objection. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Willrocks10, why are you insisting on changing the picture in the upper right hand corner? The only reason you've given is that you think it "looks better." I think the creche with Christmas trees in the background illustrates the topic. If you don't have a good reason for the change, please don't change it.

If there are no objections, I plan to change it back again. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Willrocks10, please stop making your substitution of the image in the infobox. That picture has been there quite a while, and your opinion that the one you keep substituting "looks better" is not sufficient reason for making such a change. (Besides, I think it's a tacky-looking tree). If you persist in making your substitution, I will assume you're committing vandalism. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the nativity scene/trees picture and not the Christmas tree that Willrocks10 (and his sockpuppet?) are trying to insert. Willrocks, please join discussion here and reach consensus for change before re-inserting the image. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the nativity scene is a better depiction of the holiday. It seems more wholistic and I like the fact that Christian and pagan symbols are present in the picture. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)