This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it'd be great if we could get this article to FA status again, and have it featured on the main page on December 25, 2006. Come on you've got to love that. Definitely doable. -- Alfakim -- talk 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I created a history section, but it's very text-heavy now. I didn't find anything appropriate on the copyright-free sites. I was thinking of googling up old artwork, but I am not sure what the policy is on that. Kauffner 13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on the recent reverts made by User:Clinkophonist, allegedly because I am "Catholic," (which I am not). If you look at the old comments in the archive on this material, it is uniformly negative, which is what inspired me to rewrite it. It is not scholarly or referenced. It connects Christmas to almost everything except Christianity. Finally, the revert cuts the nativity section in half. Somehow, I imagined that the nativity was more relevant to Christmas than Saturn or Celtic gods. Kauffner 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the references to the Christ start with upper case letters, i.e. His or He instead of his or he.
No offense people, what what on earth could make anyone think this is npov?
The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel.
I'm pulling those two words for obvious reasons. There is no consensus on the issue of the historicity of Daniel, but 1). that's over the top, and 2:)those kinds of statements should be in Daniel itself, not as epithets to links. Thanatosimii 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How come there is no separate section on the pagan historical origin of Christmas?! At least the very serious controversy!
see [1] [2] [3] -- and many other! __ Maysara 09:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The comment in the nativity section that Luke and Matthew "record entirely different nativity stories" seems not entirely accurate. There are details in one that the other does not mention, and vice versa, but that does not make them "entirely different." -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometime in May 2006, the intro sentence was changed from "...celebrates the birth of Jesus" to "...celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ". Per Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, religious honorifics are generally omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations. Thus Wikipedia typically does not use titles such as "Jesus Christ" or "Prophet Muhammad". [4] [5] This article presents a unique situation, however, in that the subject of the article is clearly related to Jesus' religious title. Perhaps we could come up with a solution that addresses this while still maintaining adherance to the neutral point of view policy. For example, perhaps we could edit the first sentence to say "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, claimed to be the "Christ" or Messiah by his followers." What are other people's thoughts on this? Kaldari 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the article is too long and needs some trimming. But to drop the sections on the nativity, star of Bethlehem, and the year of Christ's birth while leaving the sections on decorations and economics strikes me as an effort to deChristianize the holiday. The secular aspects of the holiday are completely different depending on time period and country. It's Christ and Christianity that are the core of the holiday and what makes Christmas Christmas. If the nativity isn't part of the "actual holiday," what is?
On the issue of these subjects being covered elsewhere: That's par for the course in Wikipedia. Christmas is a high profile article. To let some relatively obscure article drive it's content is to let the tail wag the dog. Kauffner 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I reworked the following paragraph:
As Constantine ended persecution, Christians began to debate the nature of Christ. Some argued that he was the divine word made flesh (see John 1:14), others that he was born human and infused with the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (see Mark 1:9-11).
The last sentence sounds like Adoptionism rather than Arianism. While I am not very familiar with the specifics of Arian theology, I do not believe that sentence adequately reflects their theology since they thought Christ was a created being less than God. If I am incorrect, please change it back and I apologize. LawrenceTrevallion 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence needs a citation:
A feast celebrating Christ's birth gave the church an opportunity to promote the intermediate view that Christ was divine from the time of his incarnation.
This is a theory and needs some citation. I will leave the sentence for now. LawrenceTrevallion 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there an Xmas background you can use on your userpage? 49Untouchable 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This article on the whole is very non-POV, especially the opening sentence "Christmas is a Christian holiday held on December 25 which celebrates the birth of Jesus."
Maybe it is because I live in Japan, but Christmas is celebrated as a secular holiday by millions all over the world, without any connection with Christianity. Identifying it excusively as a Christian holiday in the opening sentence seems to be promoting an agenda, rather than reporting objectively on Christmas. MightyAtom 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Another bit on this. In the court case "Ganulin v. United States (1999)" Christmas was noted as being "largely secularized," giving employers the right to offer it as a day off work. This is probably worth mentioning in the article as well. MightyAtom 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
MightyAtom 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Although mainly a list, American Christmas traditions does a good job showing the various religious and secular aspects of Christmas, and is a good example of an appropriate tone. MightyAtom 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally know how to solve this. Put up the Navity but have everyone look skeptical. I got the idea from a Jewish stand-up comic.--Yan
The Christian nature of Christmas should be belittled, but nor should it be aggrandized.
As I have said before, many hundreds of millions of human beings celebrate Christmas every year, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday" or anything else, and they do it from an entirely secular manner with no relation to Christianity in any way. That is a fact. The Supreme Court of the USA has decided that Christmas, as it is practiced in the US, is largely secularized. That is also a fact.
That's why there should be an opening sentence that acknowledges both the Christian and secular nature of Christmas, one that is neutral without advancing a particular viewpoint.
Take a look again at this sentence, borrowed from the article on Halloween:
"Christmas is an observance celebrated on December 25, with many religious and secular aspects including the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations. "
Can anyone give a direct, unbiased reply as to why this is a POV opening sentence, or perhaps write a better one that acknowledges and includes both religious and secular observations of Christmas without giving dominance of one over others?
MightyAtom 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour. In fact, the word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός)."
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
In the developed world, Christmas has become the most economically significant holiday of the year. The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to do at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations.
In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
What are your opinions of the revised lead? It is a little more accurate and still strives to achieve neutrality. Everyone's opinion is welcome. Brisv e gas 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I love it! Great opening sentence!
One other minor suggestion. Shouldn't this bit:
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
..be moved as the opening sentence of the History section?
Cheers for the good discussion! On a side note, I haven't lived in the US for awhile, so it appears this has become some sort of new political issue...if so, that's a shame. When I was a wee tyke, we always had Christmas parties, Jesus-free and with no nativity scene or anything, at school every year. Just lots of snowmen, Santa, candy canes, reindeer and christmas trees, but it was definitely Christmas, not "Winter Holiday." :P
MightyAtom 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no opposition to mention being made of its celebration by non-Christians, but I do not think that justifies altering the reference in the intro to it being a "Christian holiday." Also, I am not sure if the appropriate place for the non-Christian celebration is in the intro. Would that not be better suited as a point in the celebration section? LawrenceTrevallion 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be added into the intro because the secular and religious celebrations of Christmas are equally important, and equally valid. This is a neutral encyclopedia. It should reflect things as how they are, not how we wish they would be.
So far, on my side of the discussion, I have a Supreme Court decision, which is a very solid reference, as well as the fact that hundreds of millions of people celebrate Christmas, again, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday," which links only to a book by Arthur Ransom.
On the opposing side are quotes like "Just because many people enjoy the secular side of Christmas does not certify that they do not celebrate or at least acknowledge the birth of Jesus." Obviously, this is of little value because nor does it certify that they acknowledge the birth of Jesus. I have personally spent my whole life celebrating a Jesus-free Christmas, as does the entire nation of Japan. There is no intrinsic connection between celebrating Christmas and celebrating Jesus's birth. It is a season of giving, and of goodwill and family
Also, there seems to be some issue of the name Christmas, which of course is Christ's Mass, a fact that many celebrators of Christmas may not even be aware of. However, this is a largely irrelevant bit of trivia, much as Halloween being All Hallow's Eve, and also being a holiday with an easy mix of pagan and Christian traditions, yet no one is making an argument that Halloween is a Christian holiday.
In fact, before proceeding with this discussion, can everyone take a look at the entry on Halloween?
Now that seems like an encyclopedia article, rather than a "church pamphlet" or a "secular pamphlet."
Also, please comment on the proposed revised opening:
"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour." MightyAtom 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, before this edit on May 31, 2006 the secular aspects were long included in the intro. A later edit Jun 8 removed even more mention of the secular aspects. I am referring to your statements such as The secular customs will stay in the "Regional customs and celebrations" section, where they belong.-- JimWae 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Halloween IS banned in many schools, by those who "view the big October bacchanalia as a quasi-religious holiday and have stopped celebrating it--in much the same way schools nationwide have dispensed with Christmas and Hanukkah because of church-state debates."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/48/story_4828_1.html
MightyAtom 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica says in their introduction to Christmas:
Since the early 20th century, Christmas has also been a secular family holiday, observed by Christians and non-Christians alike, devoid of Christian elements, and marked by an increasingly elaborate exchange of gifts. In this secular Christmas celebration, a mythical figure named Santa Claus plays the pivotal role.
MightyAtom 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have not provided my specific proposal yet. I have provided evidence that the article previously did give more prominence to the secular aspects - as it should. But, you go too far if you think the earlier article verifies your point of view. You do not seem yet to understand why I object to your language. You are speaking imperiously when you use the royal will above. -- JimWae 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It is ludicrous to suggest that non-Xns are "celebrating the birth of Jesus" when they participate in Xmas -- JimWae 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have provided a Supreme Court decision, and an entry from the Encyclopædia Britannica supporting my proposed changes, and so far little else has been provided on the opposing side other than personal opinion and hearsay. I sense more than a little bit of bias going on, and of promoting of a personal viewpoint.
I don't see the harm in stating that the religious and secular aspects of Christmas are equally valid, and equally important. This would be an accurate representation of the holiday in the modern word, and would allow for a neutral tone without advancing one over the other.
MightyAtom 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, those two articles crack me up! I know that the US is prone to fits of collective insanity from time to time, but does anyone actually say "Spring Holiday," "Winter Holiday" or "Holiday Trees?" Or is this just like freedom fries, something done by a few people that was overblown by the media?
Oh, and as for Halloween, the reason that is has been banned at schools is that Christians consider it a pagan holiday, promoting the devil, and have lobbied for its removal. At least that was the gist of most of the articles I read.
MightyAtom 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...from what I have read, the "Holiday tree" thing was a temporary fiasco, that is now over. Every is standing quite strongly on calling them Christmas trees, as they should be.
Oh, and this sentence " Kwanzaa, the latter being a holiday made up in 1966 by a convicted murderer." shows quite a bit of personal bias against beliefs and traditions that are not your own. I would be careful with that. MightyAtom 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean yes. It is a Christian holiday. Secular people do often celebrate Christmas, but its not like they invented their own holiday, their celebration is still very much derivative from the Christian tradition. Non-Jews may celebrate Hanukkah, but that doesn't make it a non-Jewish holiday. Similarly, Saint Patrick's Day is an Irish holiday, even though its celebrated throughout the world (though the secularization of this one is such that I wouldn't describe it as "Christian" in the first sentence). savidan (talk) (e@) 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
Includes both religious and secular aspects, giving prominence to both. Thoughts? To answer your earlier question MightyAtom (cool name by the way), the date of observance part should probably stay in the lead, because it is a critical piece of information that a reader should quickly be able to access. Brisv e gas 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Another job well done, Brisvegas! You do a good job balancing the different aspects all together. MightyAtom 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-if not already included
It is the emphasis on gift-giving (allegedly derived from St. Nicholas/Santa Claus) that makes it so important economically. Stores hire extra staff to help buyers find the things they want in the store. The emphasis on shopping for the right gift, and getting gifts for all who will gift you (and spending the "right amount"), and getting it all done on time, while also getting out those Xmas cards also increases stress levels (study can be cited) & many people say they need a holiday from the holiday. Following the holiday, many gifts are returned to the stores, though many stores have a policy that they will not accept returns the first few days. Stores sell items at reduced prices after Christmas, enticing people to buy some of the things that they wanted but did not receive as gifts.
Many people travel great distances to gather with other family members. Airplanes are full, & airfares rise over the holidays. While many people are happy to visit with family, many couples also feel obliged not to play favorites in the amount of time spent visiting parents on opposite sides of the family. Families gather for large meals & exchanging gifts.
Many lighting decorations are sold, with newly invented ones replacing older ones every few years. Even many non-Christians decorate their house with lights to cheer the long winter nights. People go on outings just to see the lighted displays in plazas, stores, and at other homes.
Most schools & colleges close from before Dec 25 until after Jan 1 - some for 2 weeks or more. Besides being closed on Dec 25 & Jan 1, many offices close early on Christmas Eve & on New Years's Eve, and often close or have reduced hours on other days between the 2 holidays.
-- JimWae 07:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Aside from its religious significance, the holiday has gradually adopted secular customs as well, including ostentatious festive decorations, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and the exchange of presents among family and friends, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year due to the increase in consumer spending. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because the Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
While most Christians observe Christmas on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to reflect the actual birthdate of Jesus. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later.
The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to the dominance of Christianity as the largest world religion, with approximately 2 billion adherents [2] and also due to the holiday's status as a winter festival in the Northern Hemisphere. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). Other notable customs include the closure of most businesses and schools during the holiday season, the singing of Christmas carols, intricate light displays and family gatherings. However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practised, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
In response to the RFC, I definitely agree that Christmas is not 'just' a Christian holiday. It certainly is a Christian holiday, it certainly is a holiday with a Christian history, but lots of people around the world celebrate it with little or no religious motivation.
The clearest evidence of this is that come Christmas time, an ever-increaing portion of the discourse seems to revolve around the perceived increasing Secularization of Christmas. I know there's been a judicial ruling or two that held that Christmas is a secular holiday (obviously, not to the exclusion if it ALSO being a Christian holiday).
To me, the way to handle might be to include a paragraph or two explicitly talking about the debate about whether christmas as christian-vs-secular holiday.
-- Alecmconroy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse.[1] It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
MightyAtom 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Most researches" ==> people who happen to agree with. Kalends corresponds to New Year's Day. The strenae custom has survived in France and other Catholic countries, but I don't think it was ever an American custom. Kauffner 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Just as a little background on this, maybe take a look at The History Channels "History of Christmas."
http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas
MightyAtom 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Here in the UK it is traditional to eat turkey on Christmas, not ham. There is no mention of this in the article. I find it interesting that the Germanic peoples apparently ate ham and that this has survived in America but not the UK. It would be interesting to see where the tradition of turkeys came from.-- Jcvamp 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, even if Americans do sometimes eat turkey on Christmas, I'd still like to know where this tradition came from. From my own research on the subject, it looks as though goose was usually the meat eaten at Christmas, later being replaced by the turkey. I'm still looking into it though.-- Jcvamp 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found different sources on the subject. Some say boar was the tradition, others say goose. There's also mention of things like peacocks and swans. I don't know what I can do with this information due to the 'no original research' rule. I think, however, that it obvious to anyone who's been in England at Christmas time, that we eat turkeys (something which isn't covered by the article). It's also obvious that goose was once a tradition (the most notable reference to this is Charles Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol').-- Jcvamp 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the titbit about the swans. There still is no mention of turkeys in the UK in this article... I'm not sure really how to insert it.-- Jcvamp 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section called 'Nativity' one part reads 'As they travel to Bethleham, the magi follow a star'. Surely this should be Bethlehem?-- Jcvamp 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it was intentional. I feel bad about just making changes in case I screw things up.-- Jcvamp 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel like Charlie Brown writing this... and I'm not sure how or even if it should be worked in, but it seems in the past 10 years or so, everything has to have a Christmas edition. Most tv shows have "The Christmas Episode". It seems every top40 star has to come out with their annual Christmas song. Every candy has to have it's special packaging, etc... It's as if corporations are waking up to the fact that people like xmas, people get sentimental about it, and that if they make a special widget or whatever, their sales go up even more. I guess it's hard to say who should be able to have a special or not - I'm quite fond of the old McDonald commercials w/ Ronald helping the one kid who can't ice skate...so whose to say that Skittles can't have a Christmas (er... Happy Holidays) commercial as well. But it just seems like too much of a bombardment and it has lost the specialness of it.
Like the man said "Christmas has become too commercial." Guess I'm just getting old! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon ( talk • contribs) .
I was surfing around on a forum just a couple of minutes ago and I saw a post that said "most people celebrate it [Christmas] on the 25th", and that didn't sound right to me. I came here to check it out, and it seems that the article is slightly "biased" towards an American point of view, which it shouldn't be (it shouldn't be european biased either, but instead rather neutral). It is also misleading that, in the opening lines of the article, it says that "users of the Gregorian calendar observe the holiday on December 25", which isn't true. I'm from Denmark myself, and December 25th has never been recognised as Christmas Day. Instead it's called Second Christmas Day, and is just a normal holiday with no presents and no fancy food. So, all in all I find the article biased towards a specific cultural tradition, and I think the article's neutrality has been somewhat lost.
Of course the name Christmas is derived from "Christ's Mass," in the exact same way that the name Halloween is derived from "All Hallow's Eve," and even the word "holiday" is derived from "Holy Day." However, those are nothing more than interesting entomology. MightyAtom 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, a new question for everyone! This article is really long, and hard to navigate. What does everyone think about chopping it up a bit, and making it more user-friendly? Some of the sections, like Santa Claus and Nativity of Jesus already have solid articles, and probably don't need to be represented here more than just a slight intro and a link to the daughter pages. Some of the other longer sections could probably be daughtered off, or at least sub-catagorized to enable easier reading. What you think? MightyAtom 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article could reasonably be considered an exception to WP:SIZE on the basis that this article "acts as a summary and starting point" or is a "broad subject." I have reviewed the "Economics of Christmas," "Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts," "Christmas Tree and other decorations," and "Regional customs and celebrations" sections and I believe them to be informative and well-written. They would be most benefitted by Wikification, proper sourcing, and minor restructuring, particularly in "Regional customs," which could be formatted to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a trivia list. I do not mean to suggest, however, that the information is trivial — only its presentation. We must remember that Wikipedia is written to serve a worldwide perspective. Discussion of regional Christmas customs might seem superfluous to the article, but, we must remember that many readers are unfamiliar with customs outside of their own locale. Even the bit about wrapping paper. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Per MOS Wikilinks I am going to begin removing the redundant and extraneous hyperlinks. In general, A word should only be linked the first time it is used, and we should only add links when they would provide useful info to the reader about the subject of the article. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the show "The Boondocks" Huey stated in the christmas episode that christmas was originally a pagan holiday where men would give each other gifts and the partying usually got so out of hand that they erupted into gay orgies, and the protestant church banned the holiday until 1820. Is any of this true?
This section seems to be totally redundant. There is almost nothng in here that isn't repeated in one or more sections elsewhere. Clearly some of the excess needs to be trimmed. Would it be better to trim the redundant content from other sections, or could we just remove this one entirely? -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than engage in a revert war over what has become a content dispute, I'm bringing this to the Talkpage. I am adamantly opposed to including this material in the article in any section. It is an overt POV that is completely unrelated to this topic. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sermon. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't respond to my argument, but are asserting that the consensus is authoratative. The content has been accused of being irrelevant, POV, and other editors have indicated they just didn't like it. I have shown the relevance of the material which is obvious. It is not my POV, but the article's subject's own words. Just because you find it offensive from your POV, isn't a good reason to threaten blocking another editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 ( talk • contribs) .
You have your opinion and your POV. However, the bible is a reputable source and it is correctly cited. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it less reputable than any other source. If you want to dispute the bible, that's a personal issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 ( talk • contribs) .
The dispute is not over whether you or anyone else believes what the bible says. The dispute is over whether or not the bible attributes those words to Jesus or not. The bible clearly does.
NOTE: The Article size guidelines recommend that an article shouldn't normally exceed approximately 32kb. Since this one is currently 44kb, it looks like we need to trim quite a bit; nearly 1/4 of the total. It doesn't need to be exactly 32kb, but it's clearly too long, and trimming just a few words from each section won't be enough. I'm going to start by removing the "Other dates" section as I suggested above. Almost all the material in there appears earlier in the article as well. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I whacked "Other dates" with an axe, and it only shaved 2kb off the overall length. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The "lead image" (the first one readers see after the infobox) is currently the somewhat dreary "Catacombs" painting. "Adorazion del Bambino", now in the Nativity section, seems like a much stronger visual representation of the birth of Jesus and the Christian origins of the holiday. Also, in terms of aesthetics, "Adorazion" is probably one of the better images in the article overall. Would it make sense to move it into the lead position? IMHO it would give the article a more immediate visual appeal. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the new "Pre-Christian Origins of holiday" section is a lot of nonsense. It doesn't include a single reference to support the arguement that Christmas originated with any of the pagan holidays mentioned. Of course, it's easy enough to get references for pretty much any theory you want. But the story of the holiday as it was given earlier was referenced to articles published in a historian's magazine. Saturnalia was Dec. 17-22, so it can't used to explain the choice of a Dec. 25 date. I also think its sleazy that the length issue has been used as an excuse to pull the bulk of the Christian-oriented text and images, while actually adding pagan-oriented material. An unsourced paragraph about how cruelly Constantius treated Mithras followers? What a joke! Christmas is Christian holiday. Saturnalia and Mithras have their own articles. Kauffner 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that that section is referenced. The festival of Sol Invictus being appropriated by early Christians in mentioned in the encyclopedia britannica article. I just added a link to the History Channel's "History of Christmas," which includes the information on Saturnalia and Mithras. The pagan origins of Christmas are referenced by almost all reputable, neutral sources. There are also several Christian websites that acknowledge this historical fact.
For example:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/christma.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/dec08.html
To not include the pre-Christian orgins of Christmas would be willfully censoring historical facts in order to advance a certain agenda. MightyAtom 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as references go, that link to "Christian History and Biography" magazine is a pretty solid reference for that section, discussing the appropriate of the date of Mithras/Sol Invictus's birthday, as well as customs transfered over from Saturnalia. I am more than happy to see that section re-written (I didn't write it myself. The person who did wrote it with some pretty heavy-handed POV, that I tried to tone down in the editing). The timeline should definitely go chronological though. MightyAtom 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently learned more about article length from Severa, a long-time editor with experience on the subject. There is an exception to Wikipedia:Article size for "top-tier articles", and apparently Christmas qualifies as such (ie, it is a parent-article with many children). Instead of a 32kb limit then, the situation is more open-ended. There are several examples of top-tier articles that run 60kb to 80kb+. This means we actually have a lot of freedom to expand coverage of existing sections, and possibly add new sections. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The link to this states that some Senagalese celebrate Chrsitmas, so it is true that even if they do this, they would be an extreme minority. The article however states - '"Officially, we Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. But the Catholics are our neighbors. So, we all celebrate all the religious holidays. We share the same houses, even graveyards. It has been the same for years," says shopkeeper El Hadj Diop sitting before his African antique store."' That makes it clear that even the Senegalese don't accept it as part of Islam, so maybe you can quote that Senagalese celebrate Christmas, but it should not be stated that any Muslims celebrate Chrsitmas as it is not true. The Islamic ruling on celebrating Christmas is clear, here is a link to two fatawa on the topic - [10] [11]Some scholars declare that anyone who does so has left the religion, so it is a major matter that is not taken lightly. This is out of our respect and love for Jesus peace be upon him, not out of anger. The reference should be dedelted as it is misleading and not true. Mecca Cola 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The following is copy/pasted directly from the ref:
Since the same source refers to a population of 10.5 million, this can't be discounted as an "extreme minority". A fact regarding the customs of millions of people is certainly relevant. Regarding the links to the fatawa, we may add a section about "Litigiation about Christmas" (or similar) to address various court rulings regarding the holiday. That would certainly be an appropriate place to add those links, along with a brief explanation. Since the material you removed was worked on by several editors, and placed there by consensus of those involved, I'm going to replace it for now. Thanks, Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to add the main point - the page claims "Also, some Muslims celebrate Christmas because Islam regards Jesus as a prophet, messenger and one of the top five human servants of God." Nowhere does it say ever that these Muslims do it because Jesus peace be upon him is a prophet in Islam etc. rather it claims its done out of communal respect and harmony. At least this should be taken away as Muslims don't celebrate Christmas for this exact reason - the love of Jesus peace be upon him and treating him how he should be treated and not exxagerating his status by celebrating his day of birth. Make it clear that this is not why they celelbrate it, otherwise one would assume we also celebrate Noah, Moses Solomon etc. birthdays as well.
Mecca Cola 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a cite needed tag here. Can we find a ref that states that the Romans (or whoever) regarded Sol Invictus and Mithras to be the same deity? -- Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do radio stations play X-mas music 1 month before needed? They drive me nuts! - 71.224.19.29 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well don't fucking listen to it then David Cat 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think it'd be great if we could get this article to FA status again, and have it featured on the main page on December 25, 2006. Come on you've got to love that. Definitely doable. -- Alfakim -- talk 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I created a history section, but it's very text-heavy now. I didn't find anything appropriate on the copyright-free sites. I was thinking of googling up old artwork, but I am not sure what the policy is on that. Kauffner 13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to comment on the recent reverts made by User:Clinkophonist, allegedly because I am "Catholic," (which I am not). If you look at the old comments in the archive on this material, it is uniformly negative, which is what inspired me to rewrite it. It is not scholarly or referenced. It connects Christmas to almost everything except Christianity. Finally, the revert cuts the nativity section in half. Somehow, I imagined that the nativity was more relevant to Christmas than Saturn or Celtic gods. Kauffner 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the references to the Christ start with upper case letters, i.e. His or He instead of his or he.
No offense people, what what on earth could make anyone think this is npov?
The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel.
I'm pulling those two words for obvious reasons. There is no consensus on the issue of the historicity of Daniel, but 1). that's over the top, and 2:)those kinds of statements should be in Daniel itself, not as epithets to links. Thanatosimii 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
How come there is no separate section on the pagan historical origin of Christmas?! At least the very serious controversy!
see [1] [2] [3] -- and many other! __ Maysara 09:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The comment in the nativity section that Luke and Matthew "record entirely different nativity stories" seems not entirely accurate. There are details in one that the other does not mention, and vice versa, but that does not make them "entirely different." -- LawrenceTrevallion 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometime in May 2006, the intro sentence was changed from "...celebrates the birth of Jesus" to "...celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ". Per Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, religious honorifics are generally omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations. Thus Wikipedia typically does not use titles such as "Jesus Christ" or "Prophet Muhammad". [4] [5] This article presents a unique situation, however, in that the subject of the article is clearly related to Jesus' religious title. Perhaps we could come up with a solution that addresses this while still maintaining adherance to the neutral point of view policy. For example, perhaps we could edit the first sentence to say "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, claimed to be the "Christ" or Messiah by his followers." What are other people's thoughts on this? Kaldari 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the article is too long and needs some trimming. But to drop the sections on the nativity, star of Bethlehem, and the year of Christ's birth while leaving the sections on decorations and economics strikes me as an effort to deChristianize the holiday. The secular aspects of the holiday are completely different depending on time period and country. It's Christ and Christianity that are the core of the holiday and what makes Christmas Christmas. If the nativity isn't part of the "actual holiday," what is?
On the issue of these subjects being covered elsewhere: That's par for the course in Wikipedia. Christmas is a high profile article. To let some relatively obscure article drive it's content is to let the tail wag the dog. Kauffner 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I reworked the following paragraph:
As Constantine ended persecution, Christians began to debate the nature of Christ. Some argued that he was the divine word made flesh (see John 1:14), others that he was born human and infused with the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (see Mark 1:9-11).
The last sentence sounds like Adoptionism rather than Arianism. While I am not very familiar with the specifics of Arian theology, I do not believe that sentence adequately reflects their theology since they thought Christ was a created being less than God. If I am incorrect, please change it back and I apologize. LawrenceTrevallion 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence needs a citation:
A feast celebrating Christ's birth gave the church an opportunity to promote the intermediate view that Christ was divine from the time of his incarnation.
This is a theory and needs some citation. I will leave the sentence for now. LawrenceTrevallion 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there an Xmas background you can use on your userpage? 49Untouchable 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This article on the whole is very non-POV, especially the opening sentence "Christmas is a Christian holiday held on December 25 which celebrates the birth of Jesus."
Maybe it is because I live in Japan, but Christmas is celebrated as a secular holiday by millions all over the world, without any connection with Christianity. Identifying it excusively as a Christian holiday in the opening sentence seems to be promoting an agenda, rather than reporting objectively on Christmas. MightyAtom 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Another bit on this. In the court case "Ganulin v. United States (1999)" Christmas was noted as being "largely secularized," giving employers the right to offer it as a day off work. This is probably worth mentioning in the article as well. MightyAtom 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
MightyAtom 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Although mainly a list, American Christmas traditions does a good job showing the various religious and secular aspects of Christmas, and is a good example of an appropriate tone. MightyAtom 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally know how to solve this. Put up the Navity but have everyone look skeptical. I got the idea from a Jewish stand-up comic.--Yan
The Christian nature of Christmas should be belittled, but nor should it be aggrandized.
As I have said before, many hundreds of millions of human beings celebrate Christmas every year, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday" or anything else, and they do it from an entirely secular manner with no relation to Christianity in any way. That is a fact. The Supreme Court of the USA has decided that Christmas, as it is practiced in the US, is largely secularized. That is also a fact.
That's why there should be an opening sentence that acknowledges both the Christian and secular nature of Christmas, one that is neutral without advancing a particular viewpoint.
Take a look again at this sentence, borrowed from the article on Halloween:
"Christmas is an observance celebrated on December 25, with many religious and secular aspects including the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations. "
Can anyone give a direct, unbiased reply as to why this is a POV opening sentence, or perhaps write a better one that acknowledges and includes both religious and secular observations of Christmas without giving dominance of one over others?
MightyAtom 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour. In fact, the word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός)."
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
In the developed world, Christmas has become the most economically significant holiday of the year. The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to do at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations.
In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
What are your opinions of the revised lead? It is a little more accurate and still strives to achieve neutrality. Everyone's opinion is welcome. Brisv e gas 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I love it! Great opening sentence!
One other minor suggestion. Shouldn't this bit:
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
..be moved as the opening sentence of the History section?
Cheers for the good discussion! On a side note, I haven't lived in the US for awhile, so it appears this has become some sort of new political issue...if so, that's a shame. When I was a wee tyke, we always had Christmas parties, Jesus-free and with no nativity scene or anything, at school every year. Just lots of snowmen, Santa, candy canes, reindeer and christmas trees, but it was definitely Christmas, not "Winter Holiday." :P
MightyAtom 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no opposition to mention being made of its celebration by non-Christians, but I do not think that justifies altering the reference in the intro to it being a "Christian holiday." Also, I am not sure if the appropriate place for the non-Christian celebration is in the intro. Would that not be better suited as a point in the celebration section? LawrenceTrevallion 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be added into the intro because the secular and religious celebrations of Christmas are equally important, and equally valid. This is a neutral encyclopedia. It should reflect things as how they are, not how we wish they would be.
So far, on my side of the discussion, I have a Supreme Court decision, which is a very solid reference, as well as the fact that hundreds of millions of people celebrate Christmas, again, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday," which links only to a book by Arthur Ransom.
On the opposing side are quotes like "Just because many people enjoy the secular side of Christmas does not certify that they do not celebrate or at least acknowledge the birth of Jesus." Obviously, this is of little value because nor does it certify that they acknowledge the birth of Jesus. I have personally spent my whole life celebrating a Jesus-free Christmas, as does the entire nation of Japan. There is no intrinsic connection between celebrating Christmas and celebrating Jesus's birth. It is a season of giving, and of goodwill and family
Also, there seems to be some issue of the name Christmas, which of course is Christ's Mass, a fact that many celebrators of Christmas may not even be aware of. However, this is a largely irrelevant bit of trivia, much as Halloween being All Hallow's Eve, and also being a holiday with an easy mix of pagan and Christian traditions, yet no one is making an argument that Halloween is a Christian holiday.
In fact, before proceeding with this discussion, can everyone take a look at the entry on Halloween?
Now that seems like an encyclopedia article, rather than a "church pamphlet" or a "secular pamphlet."
Also, please comment on the proposed revised opening:
"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour." MightyAtom 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, before this edit on May 31, 2006 the secular aspects were long included in the intro. A later edit Jun 8 removed even more mention of the secular aspects. I am referring to your statements such as The secular customs will stay in the "Regional customs and celebrations" section, where they belong.-- JimWae 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Halloween IS banned in many schools, by those who "view the big October bacchanalia as a quasi-religious holiday and have stopped celebrating it--in much the same way schools nationwide have dispensed with Christmas and Hanukkah because of church-state debates."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/48/story_4828_1.html
MightyAtom 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica says in their introduction to Christmas:
Since the early 20th century, Christmas has also been a secular family holiday, observed by Christians and non-Christians alike, devoid of Christian elements, and marked by an increasingly elaborate exchange of gifts. In this secular Christmas celebration, a mythical figure named Santa Claus plays the pivotal role.
MightyAtom 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have not provided my specific proposal yet. I have provided evidence that the article previously did give more prominence to the secular aspects - as it should. But, you go too far if you think the earlier article verifies your point of view. You do not seem yet to understand why I object to your language. You are speaking imperiously when you use the royal will above. -- JimWae 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It is ludicrous to suggest that non-Xns are "celebrating the birth of Jesus" when they participate in Xmas -- JimWae 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have provided a Supreme Court decision, and an entry from the Encyclopædia Britannica supporting my proposed changes, and so far little else has been provided on the opposing side other than personal opinion and hearsay. I sense more than a little bit of bias going on, and of promoting of a personal viewpoint.
I don't see the harm in stating that the religious and secular aspects of Christmas are equally valid, and equally important. This would be an accurate representation of the holiday in the modern word, and would allow for a neutral tone without advancing one over the other.
MightyAtom 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, those two articles crack me up! I know that the US is prone to fits of collective insanity from time to time, but does anyone actually say "Spring Holiday," "Winter Holiday" or "Holiday Trees?" Or is this just like freedom fries, something done by a few people that was overblown by the media?
Oh, and as for Halloween, the reason that is has been banned at schools is that Christians consider it a pagan holiday, promoting the devil, and have lobbied for its removal. At least that was the gist of most of the articles I read.
MightyAtom 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...from what I have read, the "Holiday tree" thing was a temporary fiasco, that is now over. Every is standing quite strongly on calling them Christmas trees, as they should be.
Oh, and this sentence " Kwanzaa, the latter being a holiday made up in 1966 by a convicted murderer." shows quite a bit of personal bias against beliefs and traditions that are not your own. I would be careful with that. MightyAtom 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean yes. It is a Christian holiday. Secular people do often celebrate Christmas, but its not like they invented their own holiday, their celebration is still very much derivative from the Christian tradition. Non-Jews may celebrate Hanukkah, but that doesn't make it a non-Jewish holiday. Similarly, Saint Patrick's Day is an Irish holiday, even though its celebrated throughout the world (though the secularization of this one is such that I wouldn't describe it as "Christian" in the first sentence). savidan (talk) (e@) 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.
The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
Includes both religious and secular aspects, giving prominence to both. Thoughts? To answer your earlier question MightyAtom (cool name by the way), the date of observance part should probably stay in the lead, because it is a critical piece of information that a reader should quickly be able to access. Brisv e gas 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Another job well done, Brisvegas! You do a good job balancing the different aspects all together. MightyAtom 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-if not already included
It is the emphasis on gift-giving (allegedly derived from St. Nicholas/Santa Claus) that makes it so important economically. Stores hire extra staff to help buyers find the things they want in the store. The emphasis on shopping for the right gift, and getting gifts for all who will gift you (and spending the "right amount"), and getting it all done on time, while also getting out those Xmas cards also increases stress levels (study can be cited) & many people say they need a holiday from the holiday. Following the holiday, many gifts are returned to the stores, though many stores have a policy that they will not accept returns the first few days. Stores sell items at reduced prices after Christmas, enticing people to buy some of the things that they wanted but did not receive as gifts.
Many people travel great distances to gather with other family members. Airplanes are full, & airfares rise over the holidays. While many people are happy to visit with family, many couples also feel obliged not to play favorites in the amount of time spent visiting parents on opposite sides of the family. Families gather for large meals & exchanging gifts.
Many lighting decorations are sold, with newly invented ones replacing older ones every few years. Even many non-Christians decorate their house with lights to cheer the long winter nights. People go on outings just to see the lighted displays in plazas, stores, and at other homes.
Most schools & colleges close from before Dec 25 until after Jan 1 - some for 2 weeks or more. Besides being closed on Dec 25 & Jan 1, many offices close early on Christmas Eve & on New Years's Eve, and often close or have reduced hours on other days between the 2 holidays.
-- JimWae 07:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Aside from its religious significance, the holiday has gradually adopted secular customs as well, including ostentatious festive decorations, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and the exchange of presents among family and friends, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year due to the increase in consumer spending. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. [1] It is a contraction meaning " Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because the Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
While most Christians observe Christmas on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to reflect the actual birthdate of Jesus. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later.
The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to the dominance of Christianity as the largest world religion, with approximately 2 billion adherents [2] and also due to the holiday's status as a winter festival in the Northern Hemisphere. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). Other notable customs include the closure of most businesses and schools during the holiday season, the singing of Christmas carols, intricate light displays and family gatherings. However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practised, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
In response to the RFC, I definitely agree that Christmas is not 'just' a Christian holiday. It certainly is a Christian holiday, it certainly is a holiday with a Christian history, but lots of people around the world celebrate it with little or no religious motivation.
The clearest evidence of this is that come Christmas time, an ever-increaing portion of the discourse seems to revolve around the perceived increasing Secularization of Christmas. I know there's been a judicial ruling or two that held that Christmas is a secular holiday (obviously, not to the exclusion if it ALSO being a Christian holiday).
To me, the way to handle might be to include a paragraph or two explicitly talking about the debate about whether christmas as christian-vs-secular holiday.
-- Alecmconroy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse.[1] It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
MightyAtom 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Most researches" ==> people who happen to agree with. Kalends corresponds to New Year's Day. The strenae custom has survived in France and other Catholic countries, but I don't think it was ever an American custom. Kauffner 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Just as a little background on this, maybe take a look at The History Channels "History of Christmas."
http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas
MightyAtom 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Here in the UK it is traditional to eat turkey on Christmas, not ham. There is no mention of this in the article. I find it interesting that the Germanic peoples apparently ate ham and that this has survived in America but not the UK. It would be interesting to see where the tradition of turkeys came from.-- Jcvamp 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, even if Americans do sometimes eat turkey on Christmas, I'd still like to know where this tradition came from. From my own research on the subject, it looks as though goose was usually the meat eaten at Christmas, later being replaced by the turkey. I'm still looking into it though.-- Jcvamp 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found different sources on the subject. Some say boar was the tradition, others say goose. There's also mention of things like peacocks and swans. I don't know what I can do with this information due to the 'no original research' rule. I think, however, that it obvious to anyone who's been in England at Christmas time, that we eat turkeys (something which isn't covered by the article). It's also obvious that goose was once a tradition (the most notable reference to this is Charles Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol').-- Jcvamp 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the titbit about the swans. There still is no mention of turkeys in the UK in this article... I'm not sure really how to insert it.-- Jcvamp 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section called 'Nativity' one part reads 'As they travel to Bethleham, the magi follow a star'. Surely this should be Bethlehem?-- Jcvamp 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it was intentional. I feel bad about just making changes in case I screw things up.-- Jcvamp 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel like Charlie Brown writing this... and I'm not sure how or even if it should be worked in, but it seems in the past 10 years or so, everything has to have a Christmas edition. Most tv shows have "The Christmas Episode". It seems every top40 star has to come out with their annual Christmas song. Every candy has to have it's special packaging, etc... It's as if corporations are waking up to the fact that people like xmas, people get sentimental about it, and that if they make a special widget or whatever, their sales go up even more. I guess it's hard to say who should be able to have a special or not - I'm quite fond of the old McDonald commercials w/ Ronald helping the one kid who can't ice skate...so whose to say that Skittles can't have a Christmas (er... Happy Holidays) commercial as well. But it just seems like too much of a bombardment and it has lost the specialness of it.
Like the man said "Christmas has become too commercial." Guess I'm just getting old! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon ( talk • contribs) .
I was surfing around on a forum just a couple of minutes ago and I saw a post that said "most people celebrate it [Christmas] on the 25th", and that didn't sound right to me. I came here to check it out, and it seems that the article is slightly "biased" towards an American point of view, which it shouldn't be (it shouldn't be european biased either, but instead rather neutral). It is also misleading that, in the opening lines of the article, it says that "users of the Gregorian calendar observe the holiday on December 25", which isn't true. I'm from Denmark myself, and December 25th has never been recognised as Christmas Day. Instead it's called Second Christmas Day, and is just a normal holiday with no presents and no fancy food. So, all in all I find the article biased towards a specific cultural tradition, and I think the article's neutrality has been somewhat lost.
Of course the name Christmas is derived from "Christ's Mass," in the exact same way that the name Halloween is derived from "All Hallow's Eve," and even the word "holiday" is derived from "Holy Day." However, those are nothing more than interesting entomology. MightyAtom 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, a new question for everyone! This article is really long, and hard to navigate. What does everyone think about chopping it up a bit, and making it more user-friendly? Some of the sections, like Santa Claus and Nativity of Jesus already have solid articles, and probably don't need to be represented here more than just a slight intro and a link to the daughter pages. Some of the other longer sections could probably be daughtered off, or at least sub-catagorized to enable easier reading. What you think? MightyAtom 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article could reasonably be considered an exception to WP:SIZE on the basis that this article "acts as a summary and starting point" or is a "broad subject." I have reviewed the "Economics of Christmas," "Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts," "Christmas Tree and other decorations," and "Regional customs and celebrations" sections and I believe them to be informative and well-written. They would be most benefitted by Wikification, proper sourcing, and minor restructuring, particularly in "Regional customs," which could be formatted to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a trivia list. I do not mean to suggest, however, that the information is trivial — only its presentation. We must remember that Wikipedia is written to serve a worldwide perspective. Discussion of regional Christmas customs might seem superfluous to the article, but, we must remember that many readers are unfamiliar with customs outside of their own locale. Even the bit about wrapping paper. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Per MOS Wikilinks I am going to begin removing the redundant and extraneous hyperlinks. In general, A word should only be linked the first time it is used, and we should only add links when they would provide useful info to the reader about the subject of the article. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the show "The Boondocks" Huey stated in the christmas episode that christmas was originally a pagan holiday where men would give each other gifts and the partying usually got so out of hand that they erupted into gay orgies, and the protestant church banned the holiday until 1820. Is any of this true?
This section seems to be totally redundant. There is almost nothng in here that isn't repeated in one or more sections elsewhere. Clearly some of the excess needs to be trimmed. Would it be better to trim the redundant content from other sections, or could we just remove this one entirely? -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than engage in a revert war over what has become a content dispute, I'm bringing this to the Talkpage. I am adamantly opposed to including this material in the article in any section. It is an overt POV that is completely unrelated to this topic. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sermon. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't respond to my argument, but are asserting that the consensus is authoratative. The content has been accused of being irrelevant, POV, and other editors have indicated they just didn't like it. I have shown the relevance of the material which is obvious. It is not my POV, but the article's subject's own words. Just because you find it offensive from your POV, isn't a good reason to threaten blocking another editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 ( talk • contribs) .
You have your opinion and your POV. However, the bible is a reputable source and it is correctly cited. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it less reputable than any other source. If you want to dispute the bible, that's a personal issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 ( talk • contribs) .
The dispute is not over whether you or anyone else believes what the bible says. The dispute is over whether or not the bible attributes those words to Jesus or not. The bible clearly does.
NOTE: The Article size guidelines recommend that an article shouldn't normally exceed approximately 32kb. Since this one is currently 44kb, it looks like we need to trim quite a bit; nearly 1/4 of the total. It doesn't need to be exactly 32kb, but it's clearly too long, and trimming just a few words from each section won't be enough. I'm going to start by removing the "Other dates" section as I suggested above. Almost all the material in there appears earlier in the article as well. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I whacked "Other dates" with an axe, and it only shaved 2kb off the overall length. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The "lead image" (the first one readers see after the infobox) is currently the somewhat dreary "Catacombs" painting. "Adorazion del Bambino", now in the Nativity section, seems like a much stronger visual representation of the birth of Jesus and the Christian origins of the holiday. Also, in terms of aesthetics, "Adorazion" is probably one of the better images in the article overall. Would it make sense to move it into the lead position? IMHO it would give the article a more immediate visual appeal. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the new "Pre-Christian Origins of holiday" section is a lot of nonsense. It doesn't include a single reference to support the arguement that Christmas originated with any of the pagan holidays mentioned. Of course, it's easy enough to get references for pretty much any theory you want. But the story of the holiday as it was given earlier was referenced to articles published in a historian's magazine. Saturnalia was Dec. 17-22, so it can't used to explain the choice of a Dec. 25 date. I also think its sleazy that the length issue has been used as an excuse to pull the bulk of the Christian-oriented text and images, while actually adding pagan-oriented material. An unsourced paragraph about how cruelly Constantius treated Mithras followers? What a joke! Christmas is Christian holiday. Saturnalia and Mithras have their own articles. Kauffner 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that that section is referenced. The festival of Sol Invictus being appropriated by early Christians in mentioned in the encyclopedia britannica article. I just added a link to the History Channel's "History of Christmas," which includes the information on Saturnalia and Mithras. The pagan origins of Christmas are referenced by almost all reputable, neutral sources. There are also several Christian websites that acknowledge this historical fact.
For example:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/christma.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/dec08.html
To not include the pre-Christian orgins of Christmas would be willfully censoring historical facts in order to advance a certain agenda. MightyAtom 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as references go, that link to "Christian History and Biography" magazine is a pretty solid reference for that section, discussing the appropriate of the date of Mithras/Sol Invictus's birthday, as well as customs transfered over from Saturnalia. I am more than happy to see that section re-written (I didn't write it myself. The person who did wrote it with some pretty heavy-handed POV, that I tried to tone down in the editing). The timeline should definitely go chronological though. MightyAtom 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I've recently learned more about article length from Severa, a long-time editor with experience on the subject. There is an exception to Wikipedia:Article size for "top-tier articles", and apparently Christmas qualifies as such (ie, it is a parent-article with many children). Instead of a 32kb limit then, the situation is more open-ended. There are several examples of top-tier articles that run 60kb to 80kb+. This means we actually have a lot of freedom to expand coverage of existing sections, and possibly add new sections. -- Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The link to this states that some Senagalese celebrate Chrsitmas, so it is true that even if they do this, they would be an extreme minority. The article however states - '"Officially, we Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. But the Catholics are our neighbors. So, we all celebrate all the religious holidays. We share the same houses, even graveyards. It has been the same for years," says shopkeeper El Hadj Diop sitting before his African antique store."' That makes it clear that even the Senegalese don't accept it as part of Islam, so maybe you can quote that Senagalese celebrate Christmas, but it should not be stated that any Muslims celebrate Chrsitmas as it is not true. The Islamic ruling on celebrating Christmas is clear, here is a link to two fatawa on the topic - [10] [11]Some scholars declare that anyone who does so has left the religion, so it is a major matter that is not taken lightly. This is out of our respect and love for Jesus peace be upon him, not out of anger. The reference should be dedelted as it is misleading and not true. Mecca Cola 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The following is copy/pasted directly from the ref:
Since the same source refers to a population of 10.5 million, this can't be discounted as an "extreme minority". A fact regarding the customs of millions of people is certainly relevant. Regarding the links to the fatawa, we may add a section about "Litigiation about Christmas" (or similar) to address various court rulings regarding the holiday. That would certainly be an appropriate place to add those links, along with a brief explanation. Since the material you removed was worked on by several editors, and placed there by consensus of those involved, I'm going to replace it for now. Thanks, Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to add the main point - the page claims "Also, some Muslims celebrate Christmas because Islam regards Jesus as a prophet, messenger and one of the top five human servants of God." Nowhere does it say ever that these Muslims do it because Jesus peace be upon him is a prophet in Islam etc. rather it claims its done out of communal respect and harmony. At least this should be taken away as Muslims don't celebrate Christmas for this exact reason - the love of Jesus peace be upon him and treating him how he should be treated and not exxagerating his status by celebrating his day of birth. Make it clear that this is not why they celelbrate it, otherwise one would assume we also celebrate Noah, Moses Solomon etc. birthdays as well.
Mecca Cola 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a cite needed tag here. Can we find a ref that states that the Romans (or whoever) regarded Sol Invictus and Mithras to be the same deity? -- Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do radio stations play X-mas music 1 month before needed? They drive me nuts! - 71.224.19.29 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well don't fucking listen to it then David Cat 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)