![]() | 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 just wanted to cange the image deleted (?) with equivalent Image:Adorazione del Bambino - Beato Angelico.jpg -- Sailko ( talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph, there are two sentences which stood out as completely out-of-place and bad writing style. I suspect they are vandalism by the user "Kazuba" who, according to the editing history, added this text:
07:14, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Christmas (Christmas) "There is no mention of Christmas being celebrated by the early Christians in the New Testament. This holiday celebration is not supported by scripture. It was created by Pagan Christians. Christianity did not destroy Paganism. Paganism absorbed Christianity adding it's tradions and Pagan touch: holidays, song, dance, pageants, art, the giving of gifts, and music to it, etc. Otherwise Christianity would not have survived."
First of all "song, dance, ... music" -- very bad style. Secondly, "and music to it, etc." -- very, very bad style.
Thirdly, this clearly presupposes that christianity is accused of killing off pagans and tries to dispel this supposition. This also makes the article sound very biased.
Finally, "Otherwise Christianity would not have survived." -- What does this mean? How does Christmas' relation to pagan traditions have anything to do with the survival of Christianity? Bad logic, bad style.
I an not registered, so I cannot delete these sentences (it is protected from vandalism). For now could someone change it so something like this:
"As Christianity evolved in Europe over the years, various pagan traditions, especially the winter festivals, came to be celebrated as Christmas. These festivities include song and dance, pageants, and the giving of gifts. Nowadays, Christmas is celebrated as a festival in it's own right with several traditions, especially music, made specifically for the celebration of the holiday."
The beginning of this article is terrible- it's fine to discuss absorption of paganism by Christianity, but it really seems like whoever edited that part last was trying to make a point, as if they were offended by something. 24.21.165.109 ( talk) 09:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the Christmas controversy section, and perhaps this article needs to be rewritten somewhat because it focuses too much on the so-called modern secularization of christmas, yet misses on this important point:
Didn't christmas somewhat originate from the purley secular winter festival celebrations, especially Yule?.Like the article on Yule says,"Christmas, which is essentially the symbology and traditions of Yule with the Christian story of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth superimposed upon it".
And doesn't this article document how historically christians and non-christians have debated why and if the celebration of the nativity of jesus is important, or even nessesary?, yet somehow its now the most important and celebrated time of the year.
On top of that, wasn't the date of december 25th partially chosen historically to coincide with the idea of winter soltice celebrations?, as there is no biblical reference to dec 25 as a birth date for jesus.
What I'm getting at is instead of people complaining that the whole religious aspect behind christmas has been faded, maybe it should be considered that it was never really there in the first place, that maybe christmas was historically created as a reason for christians and others to gather and celebrate during the end of year/winter soltice.Maybe the Nativity of Jesus was a good excuse for such.
Logically speaking, isn't that a fair assumption?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And a little of topic, but doesn't this somewhat apply to Easter as well?, and its now semmingly secular traditions.From what I understand, the idea of egg-painting and decorating, and the fact that bunnies and hares are associated with easter, is due to the fact that eggs, laid by birds, and bunnies, which highly reproduce, are symbols of fertility, which coincides with the fact that easter is tied to the beggining of spring when new animals and plants are born and come out of hibernation, symbolizing another time of celebration.
So it seems both Christmas and Easter are historicaly tied with purely seasonal, secular celebrations, and are now celebrated mainly as such.How much does the history of christmas relate with easter, in how they truly originated?. Rodrigue ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, not just in terms of history, but just for why they are even significant.You say the religious aspect is still very important to many.But technically, I believe easter, representing the resurrection of christ, is the most, if not one of the most significant times of year for Christianity, as it is close/tied to the significance of the birth of christ.
But then why is Christmas seemingly so much more celebrated?, and why fewer even know the religious significance of easter.Because the secular origins of Christmas make it much more significant than easter.Even devout Christians regard Christmas as the most significant time of year, yet easter is not nearly as celebrated in terms of what it represents, even religiously. 67.71.60.47 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, heres what I basically said: Do you really think jesus's birth is that much more significant than his resurrection, as to justify why Christmas is so much more highly regarded among christians, and others than easter?.
Or perhaps, like I said, the secular element of Christmas is what makes it so much more important, regardless of how devoutly you celebrate it. Rodrigue ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So isn't Christmas %100 just Yule?, just with the artificially added Nativity of Jesus story being either a central, or non-existing part of celebrations, depending on who you are.
The why is there even a Christmas controversy section.the whole point is christmas didn't come from religious origins, so why complain about its secularization. Rodrigue ( talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not a devout Christian, but I totally support the view that an article about Christmas should be about the religious festival celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
Just because two events occur on the same day does not mean that a festival on that day is celebrating both of them. The celebrant chooses what they are celebrating. So just because Saturnalia or Sol Invictus or whatever happens to fall on 25 December does not mean that any festivities on that day are celebrating either one of them. Either this page is about Christmas, or it is about Festivals on 25 December, but it should not, IMHO, try to be about both of them. 86.146.121.86 ( talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas...and so I will: Merry Christmas to all! Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi vobiscum, amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if his irrelevant section will even last, but yeah, don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia anyways. Rodrigue ( talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it could not. A very Merry Christmas to all! TheCormac ( talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with being friendly. Merry Christmas all. Phoenix1177 ( talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW. What a Grinch! "Don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia"... Good God, where is the world going to when we have to put someone down just for saying 'Merry Christmas'? Would you say the same for someone who said "Happy Hanukkah"? "Happy Birthday"? "Happy Anniversary"? Merry Christmas to all... or if you don't celebrate it, just enjoy your day! 206.248.156.132 ( talk) 12:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to mention that the picture description about the Slovenian Santa is wrong:
The name Ded Moroz is Russian, it's just not written in the Russian alphabet. In Slovenia it is Dedek Mraz.
And translation will be Grandfather of Frost, not father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpykc ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Secondly he isn't Slovene, well not just Slovene. He is the communist replacement of the Christian Sveti Miklavž or historicaly St. Nicholas of Myra and the Capitalist Santa Clause, so many of the former communist countries make up their own stories about him.
Dedek Mraz comes on the night of 31 December so be good :)
Lenko 89.212.183.159 ( talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
St. Francis was the first to put together a live nativity scene. He did this as a teaching tool. It caught on and has been popularized since then.
(This is my first time commenting so I am sorry if it's wrong)
I thought I should just say that almost everyone in Germany celebrates the kristkind or Christkind and not just in the South. I could try to edit it myself although it is protected or whatever, but I thought I should just point it out to any administrators if any of them should read this.
84.68.13.231 ( talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Mike 24/12/07
I would like to suggest this external link to the above discussion:
I found it helpful, and not offensive at all. Merry Christmas! AMC0712 ( talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, TheCormac, in the spirit of wikipedia, you should be bold and change that! If you have access to better resources/information, then add them in! MightyAtom ( talk) 07:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Constantinian Origins" section (section 2.2.1 as of this writing) is a mess. Poor grammar, punctuation, and capitalization; redundant information (multiple editors?); etc., to the point that the section is barely readable. I don't want to touch it because I don't have the requisite information, but it needs attention from someone who does have the information and is capable of writing a coherent English sentence. JBJD ( talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I alone in this or does anyone else think the infobox picture is too busy? The individual elements are too small to even tell what is going on. Also, the licensing is problematic - several of the constituent images are GFDL and one is CC - they aren't mixable. I really think a single picture of a Christmas tree, a crop of Image:Happy new year 06463.jpg, or a manger scene would look nicer. -- B ( talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a minor mistake using the wrong version of sun as in sun god i wanted to edited but couldn't. Geeko8800gtx ( talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont really think that this is necessary as it impolies that the information will be changing because of the passing of christmas which it isnt, not much use otherwise. 81.129.23.206 ( talk) 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a real encyclopedia or a christian website... since when is christmas a celebration of the birth of jesus? since 2000 years ago, what about before that? when the egyptions were celebrating the birth of : HORUS ( egypt Dec 25th, 3000 BC ) .. Attis ( greece Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Mithra ( Persia Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Krishna ( india Dec 25th, 900 BC ) .. Dionysus ( greece Dec 25th, 500 BC ) ..
I can go on, but I think my point is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee hax ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus." is a biased first sentence. The rest of the article makes it very clear that this holiday is also heavily connected with celebrating the winter solstice. I propose a different first sentence: "Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the coming of winter and the birth of Jesus." This is a pretty balanced sentence to my mind. Wrad ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There are of course several winter festivals which Christmas took over, but there is no one I'm pretty sure who is celebrating Christmas as the beginning of winter, and if they are simply celebrating winter they are not celebrating Christmas. To celebrate Christmas is to by definition celebrate Jesus' birth. If you're celebrating the solstice you're celebrating something else. Romans who celebrated the Saturnalia at the same time Christians were celebrating Christmas were certainly not celebrating Christmas, even if they had a celebration on the same day. Roy Brumback ( talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important that in the "Christian Origins" section someone should add this sentence/phrase: "Many unlearned and ignorant people today think that December 25th is the day of Jesus' birth" even though the church itself has denied this claim". Reinoe ( talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
People in the southern hemisphere celebrating Christmas today are obviously not celebrating anything to do with winter, nor are they celebrating the summer solstice. Roy Brumback ( talk) 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states, "[I]n the Greek Orthodox world [Christmas] is in early January." The Website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which uses the "new" calendar) indicates that the nativity of Jesus Christ is observed on December 25. Yes, I realize that is just one archdiocese but I doubt that it's unique. --anon 70.23.139.160 ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
NOT ONLY are there "other Eastern Orthodox churches...," the vast MAJORITY of Eastern Orthodox Churches do NOT recognize the Gregorian or so-called 'revised' Julian, and they still celebrate the Julian 25 December which is 07 January on the Gregorian; The Russian Orthodox Churches and faithful alone outnumber all other Orthodox churches that follow the Gregorian/Revised calendar. Therefore, the "some" and "other" erroneous quantifies should be changed to "majority of Eastern Orthodox churches." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.140.107 ( talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out a minor error:
On December 19, 2000, the decision of Ganulin v. United States was upheld by the 'Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals', not the 'U.S. Supreme Court'. On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the case certiorari, but this only means that the body chose not to try the case, not that it affirmed the Six District Court’s ruling.
Could anyone fix this error? Thank you!
Suggestion: "Christmas is an annual holiday that ostensibly celebrates the birth of Jesus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the first line to: "Christmas is a Christian holiday and popular secular festival celebrated on December 25.", but it gets reverted. Are we denying the secular part or does this cause offense in some other way? Stronimo ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should point out I haven't read all the (I assume volumes) of talk about the first line before. I made my suggestion after coming to the article, reading it (especially the first line/paragraph) and not seeing a reflection of how I understand Christmas celebrated my urban North American slice of the world. Perhaps it is a worldview problem. Hard to reflect all. 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Commemorating the birth of Jesus section, someone had scripted the first few Bible passages to appear in the body of the article, only instead of Bible passages it was all cap nonsense about INSANE CLOWN POSSY WOOT WOOT! I fixed.
As for the comments below on Language Bias, i suggest further grounds for removing the "some who later claimed to be Christians" wordplay. Its just redundant, in a grammatical and linguistic sort of way. Look up Christian and you wont get one definition, youll get something along the lines of multiple groups of Christians. You also dont need to say "some who claim" because its implied that if they are Christians that is because they are calling themselves that.
Eric Forest ( talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to the bias in the following sentence:
"According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today."
It is not for a Wikipedia article to make a judgment on what a "true Christian" is. The cited source does not imply the "some who later claimed to be" language and stating that it does is dishonest. I would also like to note that this paragraph seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a Jehovah's Witness publication. I suggest the statement be evaluated and changed to more accurately reflect the cited source and the "some who later claimed to be Christian" phrase be replaced with something more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.231 ( talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Jesus's birth, not Jesus' birth. Unless Christmas is now the celebration of the birth of several people called Jesu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.209.81 ( talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Decorations"picknels section, it says large decorations such as illuminated sleighs and snowmen and outdoor lights only appear in Europe to a lesser extent than in other parts of the world. Speaking as someone from the UK, this is incorrect as nearly every house has some form of outdoor Christmas lights and large decorations. I am unable to edit the page because of its semi-protection, but I believe that part of it needs to be changed. After eight mints are a traditional snack.
I will look at it and make changes if neccesary Αδελφος ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The Greek (χ) chi has been used as an abbreviation since Constantine's Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The practice began long before the 16th c. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.180.104 ( talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It is also inaccurate that the term Santa Claus is only used in North America, Australia and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.241.214 ( talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to omit a great deal of relevant information regarding worldwide secular observance practices; namely, the shift of Christmas in developed nations from a strictly religious holiday to a holiday based on a tradition of consumerism. The current article pays only a small tribute to the economic significance of the celebration, despite widespread commercialization and noteworthy analysis of such practices.
I scanned through the talk pages, and the word "consumerism" is mentioned not once, even though the increasing secularization of developed societies has rendered standard Christmas observance to be a widely practiced ritual of buying.
The consumption rituals associated with the observance of Christmas deserve some mention in the article, along with a link to the article on consumerism. Readers looking for information on typical Christmas observances should be presented with a balanced view of the modern Christmas ritual, along with links to articles explaining the social dynamics of consumerism.
This should be discussed here on the talk page before insertion, since any edits to the page without prior consensus are sure to spark controversy. Stevenm55 ( talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You both make excellent points about the consumerism and apparently secular nature of this holiday. The problem is that I think you (and many others) imagine that at some point, people somehow understood the "true" meaning of Christmas, but we lost that meaning some time after the industrial revolution of Western civilizations at which time, Christmas bacame about presents and shoppping. This is simply not true. Here is a general breakdown of the history: long before Christ's birth, most agrarian civilizations in the Northern hemisphere celebrated the winter solstice (or gods representing the sun) through feasts and other traditions (decorated trees, yule logs, wreaths, etc). Christianity largely ignored these celebrations until proto-orthodox christianity began to emerge in the first few centuries of the Common Era. These early Christian churches denounced these winter celebrations as pagan. Nevertheless, Christian leaders could not stop these celebrations as they were so deeply ingrained in the cultures of these civilizations. Christianity wrestled with this issue for centuries. Should they embrace the holiday, but give it a Christian twist or should they condemn it all together? For centuries (and maybe still today) the debate continued. In the United States, Christmas celebrations did not become ingrained in the culture until about 120-150 years ago. What helped spark this renewed interest? Retailers, for the most part. The holiday as we know it today, was developed as a retail marketing campaign that capitalized on long-standing traditions. Where did Rudolph the Red Nosed Reigndeer come from? Who introduced the concept of Santa to the masses? When did gift-giving (and of course shoppinf) become popular and who pushed this tradition? The answer is that retailers, not Christ or Christianity, influenced this cultural phenomenon. I don't mean to discredit the importance of Christ's birth, but I do mean to say that Christ's existence has little to do with Christmas (past or present). Even in the behavior of true Christians, you will find that Christ only plays a part of a small percentage of their Christmas behaviors. It's really a fascinating story, but most people don't realize from where modern Christmas emerged. I think that's the story we should tell on Wikipedia rather than concoct some story about how the true meaning of the holiday was lost when some retailers and non-christians declared a war on the true meaning of Christmas. It's a hybrid holiday with strong secular roots and it was only recently named after Christ to appease Christian leaders who otherwise opposed these pagan holiday traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point (you make some good ones) but historians generally do not feel that the origin of Christmas is up for dispute. In addition to cannonical documents, many other early church writings (letters, manuscripts, etc) clearly document the debate among early church leaders as well as the existence of these winter traditions before the Common Era. I guess my point is this, you can't change the name of a pagan holiday and then say it is somehow a new and separate holiday. For example, if we changed Halloween to Christian-ween and then claim that the holiday is meant to celebrate the baptism of Christ, it's not really a new Christian holiday. This is especially true if 90% of the behaviors and customs of this "new" holiday still mirror those of the original halloween. This holiday hijacking would be made worse if people started saying that we need to get back to the "true" meaning of the holiday as if it were always about Christ's baptism rather than costumes and candy. I don't propose changing the article based on this conversation, but it would make me more comfortable with the content if these historical points were considered as well as the counter view that the original and pure version of Christmas has been somehow been tarnished by consumerism and secular behaviors/customs. Perhaps this discussion really belongs on the Christmas Controversy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"so-called pagan 'origin'"? Really? Even among Christians, nearly all of the behaviors exhibited during this season are pagan. You can say that Christmas is about Christ's birth, but your behavior says something different. Your behavios says you are pagan. (of course, when I use the term "you", I am using it as a general pronoun and I'm not targeting a certain person).Also, December 25 was not "practically every other day of the year". Please research Mithras, Sol Invictus, Pan, the list goes on. When were their birthdays? Why was Christmas switched from January 6 to December 25? Was this a coincidence? I guess I agree that it's not fair to call modern-day Christmas a pagan holiday. I'm also not sure it's fair to call it a Christian holiday either, but either way, please don't any of you forget that early Christians had a difficult time competing with pagan traditions and beliefs. It is a historical fact that dwliberate actions were taken to "christianize" these people and customs. There is nothing wrong with this, just don't try to pretend that Christianity evolved without any influence from pagans. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Elielilamasabachthani. And I also have to say that, for Christians such as myself, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. Sure I enjoy getting presents, but I don't view Christmas as getting holiday; it's a giving holiday, and you should give to those in need. (Oh, by the way, I thought it was Eloi eloi lama sabachthani. But maybe there is different ways of spelling it) Αδελφος ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
So wouldn't it be much more accurate to conclude from all this that, de facto and regardless of history, Christmas is currently a secular event with Christian and non-Christian elements? Much (in fact very much) of the article, as it stands now, explicitly contradicts the initial statement that Christmas is a "Christian holiday". You might as well define a horse as "a brown animal ..." and then spend several pages describing all horses that are not brown as if they were exceptional. AlexFekken ( talk) 06:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Side comment: Someone earlier hypothetically suggested changing "Halloween to Christian-ween." In actual fact, the word Halloween apparently originated as a contraction of "All Hallows Even," referring to the eve of All Saints Day. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the date for All Saints Day (November 1) was deliberately chosen by the church in an attempt to supplant the Celtic pagan festival of Samhain (October 31) the way Christmas apparently supplanted earlier pagan solstice festivals. (Since the ecclesiastical calendar follows the Jewish custom of counting the day as starting at sunset, All Saints Day technically begins at sunset on October 31.) It didn't work, however. Halloween as celebrated today is not a Christian holiday by any stretch of the imagination. It's really Samhain with a different name. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 04:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is in the article..
This is misleading since clicking on " Merry Christmas" takes you to an article which states that the first recorded use of Merry Christmas was in 1565. Helsingann ( talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
— Raf45Martinez ( talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
We err to say that the Roman significance of 25 December was anything but religious. In the first paragraph, "...may have initially been chosen to correspond with either a historical Roman festival or the winter solstice," should in no uncertain terms reference "a historical religious Roman festival."
CalebPM (
talk)
04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs some serious sprucing up before Christmas this year. It is not at all comprehensive in its treatment of the festival and its celebration, and in places is poorly written and badly ordered. I've made a start by restoring the original order, with the section on the nativity coming just after etymology, and before the very lengthy historical section, which most readers will be less interested in. I've also begun to add a more comprehensive account of how it is celevbrated. The sections on decorations and Santa Claus need work too, and there needs to be a section on important worship events, and other events of the Christmas period, religious and secular. Xan dar 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says: In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in North America and Ireland) is a popular mythological figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children. Two issues to discuss
Instead, perhaps, say something like:
I think the word "corruption" is strongly misused in this article. Linguistic borrowings hardly merit the connotation of "To render unsound or impure by the contamination of putrid matter; to infect, taint, render morbid." (Oxford English Dictionary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.101.108.227 ( talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The name Kris Kringle was a corruption into the English language? As stated above, the word corrupt has negative connotations. I will change it to a more neutral point, if you don't mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.146.141 ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Haven't there been a few court cases since 1984? Isn't the standard now that such displays are OK if they incorporate other seasonal displays, but that if a level of gov't displays ONLY a creche it IS a first-amendment "establishment of religion" problem-- JimWae ( talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You listen to too much talk radio. Certain municipalities have adopted "Creche +" policies concerning publicly owned/displayed Christmas decorations - and right-wing American media outlets certainly like to imply this is the "national standard" as ammo for their "culture war" - but Donnelly is the definitive case in regards to publicly owned and displayed religious symbols. City Nativity displays (and similar religion-specific iconography) are allowed without regard to other religions, ideas, expressions, etc. This coincides with a general shift toward the secular in regards to Christmas over the last couple decades in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.237.25 ( talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
With this edit, I've restructured the entire article. I know there has been some controversy about the placement of the "Nativity of Jesus" section, but this clearly belongs as a "Celebration" subcategory, and I've listed it first there. The "history" section must come before the "celebration" section, as with any other Wikipedia article. I hope we can, together, further improve the readability and flow of the history section, because currently the "Pre-Christian" history section does not flow well at all, it just lists short summaries of Sol Invictus and Winter festivals. We need to incorporate a flow here, explaining the influence of these festivals on Christmas in a historical context. Please, I hope people can come here to discuss how to improve this. The article's body has been messed up for the longest time, and I think it's about time we really went about fixing it. — CIS ( talk | stalk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we need something on the dating difference between Orthodox and Western celebrations. We need more on the economic impact of Christmas. Something on Christmas Carols. I also think we could use a short "Christmas Traditions worldwide" section to link up with the main article on that topic. On an allied idea, do we want to mention special Christmas foods? other ideas? Xan dar 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Article says oldest form is Cristes maesse (1038) but the OED gives Xpes. maessan (a1123 OE. Chron. an. 1101) and Cristes maesse (a1134 OE. Chron. an. 1127). 4 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.108 ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
he was noted for the care of Children, generosity, and the giving of gifts. His feast on the 6th of November came to be celebrated in many countries by the giving of gifts. This should say "the 6th of December". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliroze ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Remember, it's not about what you get, but the thought that counts. Also, the mostimportant is the time being spent with your family. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.39.91.241 (
talk)
21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This article falsely states that Christmas is on December 25th, which is true. However, for a large portion of Christians, it is on January 7th. Therefore, I think that should be included in the introduction, and the infobox.
Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all Christians, and all Christians should be included in this page. -- 77.122.109.26 ( talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"some eastern national churches, including those of Russia, Georgia, Egypt, Armenia, the Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia celebrate on January 7"
Armenia celebrates on January 6.
Kusko ( talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Montenegro celebrates on January 7. Bozocv ( talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a very missleading and incorrect statement, both politically and in terms of factual accuracy. The Christian world respects two calendars and neither is the pivotal one. If you're insisting on facts, the Gregorian calendar has stuck to the dates which were celebrated 2000 years ago, while the Julian calendar has introduced reforms and modifications in terms of dates some centuries ago. Orthodox churches did not "reject the Julian calendar" but simply continued to celebrate according to an ancient calendar. Nevertheless apart from the dates the Christmas remains the primary festivity for entire Christendom. Noone has the right to monopolize that holiday and declare other side to be a pariah, especially the 200,000,000+ Orthodox Christian believers. NeroN_BG
-I agree with you that "neither is the pivotal one", but one should make sure that people understand that the Gregorian calendar is the ACCURATE one!According to the Julian calendar, the tropic year is EXACTLY 365.25 days long, which is WRONG!Unless you don't mind the Spring equinox, which should fall around the 21st of March, advancing till it falls in January after a few millenaries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.123.139 ( talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How would including January 7th in the infobox be confusing? The fact of the matter is that people of the Orthodox faith celebrate Christmas on January 7th. Not December 25th. Trust me, they don't follow the Julian calendar in their daily lives. So, one part of Christianity celebrated Christmas on Friday. Another part will celebrate it the 7th of January. Because the calendar used by this wiki is Julian, January 7th should be included in the infobox. It won't be confusing at all. -- TheDmitryPetrov ( talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(Page division needed?) The purpose of this article is, in my opinion, unclear and mixed. It attempts to explain both the cultural tradition and Christmas as well as Christmas as a Christian festival. While these traditions are obviously heavy linked, they are still distinct enough to perhaps be split as articles. Often explaining the folklore, pagan, secular etc parts of Christmas is impeded by the religious element, and vice versa I am sure. For example, description of this festival as an iteration of a larger and older Eurasian tradition is prohibited. Also the description of many non-Christian parts of the season are either omitted or non-rigorously alleged to be linked or even born out of Christianity. I am concerned, because many of the people who see the Christmas are looking for a description of the cultural festival (Santa, presents, trees, nuts etc) [perhaps a project outside of the Christianity portal) rather than seeing a religious focused page with some concessions to the festival they were looking for. Sorry for being so wordy, and it is a good article. Protectthehuman ( talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, that the article may need to be split. The problem is, there isn't much left on the religious side if you take out the secular traditions. Sure, there are special church services, but just about every other tradition of the Christian Christmas is derived from a secular or pagan tradition. The religious side of the article would likely be limited to a few biblical accounts of the birth story and a celebration of the importance of Christ in Christian traditions and beliefs. The rest of this holiday is some Christianized version of a pagan or secular practice. Now matter how we cut it, Christmas cannot avoid the fact that it evolved from pagan roots. I would argue that in the actual, observable behaviors of celebrants, Christmas is a secular holiday with a few vague links to Christianity. Even the bible makes little of the birth of Christ. To Christians, it is their belief in Christ’s Immaculate Conception, his teachings as an apocalyptic rabbi and his eventual death/resurrection that matter most. Every historical record on the subjects points to one conclusion: The birth of Christ would not have become important to Christianity if there wasn't a desire by religious people to Christianize longstanding, pagan, winter festivals. These festivals and traditions were so ingrained in societies that even converts to Christianity were not willing to give them up. The solution? Rename the holiday and insert some Christian messages into it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I could just suggest that we remove this holiday from the Christianity portal, but that wouldn’t be fair either. The truth is, early Christians were successful at integrating Christ into this holiday. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be troublesome in other similar articles, eg Easter. Halloween seems to set some kind of precedent for involving religion in the summary, and then disentangling it into its own section. However that is an odd example, as Halloween, in my opinion, is a festival that the religious have largly discontinued their association with. Definitely this is a difficult issue that would require a large consensus and a lot of work. However, this seems doubtful as even the guidance for editing this article seems to pull it back to Christianity, insisting a definition where everything else is secondary. I've been reading through the talk section, and this just seems like a massive unresolved problem. Protectthehuman ( talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I now agree that it does not make sense to have two articles (or three), but I must question some of your assertions. You said “The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those…” The problem is, the holiday is about 99% non-christian no matter how you add it up. Christmas is really only a Christian holiday in name. Other than a few church services and nativity scenes (which are not historically accurate), there is no Christianity in Christmas. You contradicted your very own argument when you said that caroling is a “Christian” part of the holiday and that Santa has no pagan origin (a claim which you immediately disprove in your own statement). I wish we had a few more credentialed religious historians here. Your understanding of this issue is on par with most of my “Comparitive Religions 101” students. You’ve come a long way over the years that I’ve been reading your edits, but you are still missing too much of this history to be able to speak with any authority (in my opinion). So, what should we do? I’m not relly sure how much the history matters since this is an article mostly about Christmas today. It just bothers me when people are ignorant of the history and claim that Christmas (as we know it today) was not the result of a deliberate campaign to Christianize pagan and secular traditions. As an evangelical religion, Christianity should never apoligize for melding its self into the traditions we now know as Christmas. This practice is not theologically inconsistent with biblical teachings. All I ask is that everyone respect this history rather than resist it. You can’t just change a holiday’s name and then claim some unqualified ownership of it.
Elielilamasabachthani (
talk)
17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Sir James George Frazer the church encouraged Christians to celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus because of the enourmous popularity of the Pagan holiday, even among Christians. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PT379&dq=mithras+christmas+birthday&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Hopefully some secular person can add these important historical facts. I won't bother as I have better things to do than deal with religious fanatics who have hijacked the majority of articles dealing with Christianity on wikipedia. 201.230.48.220 ( talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 and A Happy New Year on Jan 1, 2010. http://my.calendars.net/michaelmlazo
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.237.100 ( talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Opening sentence has an intense "don't change" comment stemming from a 2006 dispute, so I'll comment even though the change was sufficiently minor. I tweaked it turning an adjective into a prepositional clause so that it's factually accurate. (The old version, to an unaware reader, would literally imply that non-christian nations which observe Christmas do so in secular celebration of Jesus's birth, akin to the US's Martin Luther King Day.) Tiny inaccuracy, small tweak. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 10:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
stalk) 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Nonsense. This is primarily a Christian festival and this should be reflected as such. Minority attitudes towards it, while important and worthy of inclusion, should not be presented in a weirdly revisionist light, nor in conflict with the primary focus of the day for the vast majority of individuals who observe it. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση ( talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The more I think over this and read over the FARC and GAR, the more I think a clear consensus is needed about the scope of the article. Right now, the two potential scopes impossibly tangled. Is this article about the Anglo-American Christians' "Christmas", the Western Europe's Dec 25 Feast of various names, all Christian Jesus-birth commemorations regardless of name or date, or all Christmas celebrations including the celebrations of non-christian nations. As is, the scope is constantly changing from sentence to sentence. If it's all, the lede is inaccurate. If it's by definition the Dec 25 Christian Feast Day, then broad swaths of the article are factually inaccurate. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Under controversy it says, "In the private sphere also, it has been alleged". Who is alleging this? Without reference to specific groups or persons this sounds like a "straw man argument". The response to these supposed allegations linked to a particular group, but the allegation itself is not proven.
In discussions of the appearance of the wise men (magi), it should be mentioned that the biblical account states that King Herod ordered the killing of male children two or under when the magi did not return to him after seeing Jesus. This indicates that they were not in attendance at Christ's birth {"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Matthew 2:16 NAS)}. Also, the magi did not see Jesus in a manger or stable, but in a house {"And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11 NAS)}, which is another indication that they were not in attendance at the time of Jesus' birth. 98.149.205.236 ( talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We should also mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated even before the introduction of Christianity. Bosniak ( talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Cme on Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση, maybe Bosniak wasn't literally accurate since it wasn't called Christmas pre-Christ, but his point is valid. I do acknowledge that this is covered throughout the article and in this discussion, so probably no need to go further here. Nearly every custom and behavior associated with Christmas existed before Christ. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Wikipedia for including accurate information about the origin of the Christmas feast, better known as Yule or Winter Solstice. It's rare to see factually accurate information on here. I nominate the relevant portions of this article as an example for all to follow. :) 81.141.76.119 ( talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The article on Christmas is good but the author seems not to know the reason why it is placed in the calendar when it is. The feast is placed purposely then because it is the time when the sun begins to increase, just as the Feast of John the Baptist in June is set for the time when the sun begins to decrease - based on John the Baptists own words of "He must increase and I must decrease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donockley ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "Current tradition in several Latin American countries (such as Venezuela and Colombia) holds that while Santa makes the toys, he then gives them to the Baby Jesus, who is the one who actually delivers them to the children's homes, a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States."
I have heard of no such tradition and cannot find any reference anywhere to it. Santa Claus is an imported figure of the traditional Christmas celebration but to my knowledge nobody in those countries holds that Santa Claus makes the toys and gives them to Baby Jesus. Please state the source of this claim, which I believe to be false.
Pbueno ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Pablo 12/30/2009
Referring to [2],
The lede linked to that, so should future ledes. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the change, whoever did it. But although Christmas is not defined as a *Christian* holiday any more, the part of the definition that says "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is still a violation of policy as it is not in agreement with the source definition. Those who do not celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday obviously do not necessarily do so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" either. It is still disputable OR and POV to assume and state that they do.
Of course the first sentence in the second paragraph ("Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians") now needs updating as well. Something like simply "Christmas is widely celebrated by Christians and non-Christians" might be better. AlexFekken ( talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Just my two cents here. I think AlexFekken is making some very valid points here. Today, Christmas may be a Christian holiday, but that's not all it is. I will support any edits that clarify this. I think this is the best way to convey to readers that this holiday is both Christian and secular at the same time. Perhaps the same can be said about Easter as well.
Elielilamasabachthani (
talk)
15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be very interested in seeing at least two definitions (secular based and Christian based) in this article. Disambigulation may be necessary, but it seems to me there is room for this to fit nicely into one article. What about a sentence that describes Christmas as a Christian holiday for many Christians, but at the same time, a secular holiday for many people. Merriiam-Webster would be a good citation for this fact. The American Heritage Dictionary also defines Christmas as "Christmastide" in its third definition. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The "History" section has two sentences that should be connected in some way, since their separation suggests that they are not related. The early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 A.D.) thought this dating plausible and suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date.[50] According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after nine months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25th.[49] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation on March 25, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.
I'd edit it myself, but this page is locked...presumably to prevent godless marketers from saying Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.196.28 ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
christmas is about sharing what you have and feeling good for sharing what you have, if a person is not feeling good or doesnt want to it is said for being selfish at christmas.written by a member of st.pauls and all hallows school n17 in tottenham england thank you for listening or taking the time to read this bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.236.12 ( talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(| Class = "wiki table" | - ! Language! Merry Christmas |- | Welsh || Nadolig Llawen]] || Nadolig Llawen
ur gsay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.69.238 ( talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. Xan dar 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)
{{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)
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)
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)
christmas is a time of getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.55.201 ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
It;s Christmas time not "Christmastime". N00bs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.203.46 ( talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article:
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:
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:
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I will leave comments in a few days.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
{{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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
In Norway, and I believe in the rest of Scandinavia at least, we celebrate Christmas Eve. This is the night that we open gifts, eat with family and go to church. Though, the 25th is the official holiday, where most stores and such are closed.
i can confirm that norwegians celebrate christmas eve. therefore i suggest that dates in all countries are listed with area listed as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.208.108.222 (
talk)
16:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
However, why the 24th is the day we celebrate I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.244 ( talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WIKIPEDIA - land of the non-secular holiday wiki endtrances and realistic historic origians (see Eostre) - the FoxNewsification of News. "If it doesnt fit my definition, it's not the right defintion." - nickschuyler@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.206.124 ( talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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:
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 05:46, 27 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To remove the inconsistency that is currently in the article perhaps the first sentence should be changed from "Christmas ... on December 25 to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ..." to "Christmas ... on December 25. Most Christians celebrate it to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ...".
I almost left out "Most" to minimise the change but then realised this wouldn't be correct. I think "Most Christians and certain non-Christians" would also be defend-able, perhaps even better, but I think that the current suggestion that everybody who celebrates Christmas does so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is too obviously incorrect to leave it there. AlexFekken ( talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Please provide source/citation for the above claims. Furthermore, the etymology of the English word "mass" refutes the argument in your last statement above (it's modern usage as reference to the Eucharist/Christian religious service developed from words used in the service itself and thus does not predate Christianity). See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass Not sure which "pagan" language to which you refer above, but the Latin for celebration was celebrare with festum/festa being the Latin for festival/feast, from which the German word also derives. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-fest Prtwhitley ( talk) 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
EXCUSE ME! How ruse of you! PBL1998 is not my sockpuppet!
WILLROCKS10 ( talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
stalk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the nativity scene is a better depiction of the holiday. It seems more holistic and I like the fact that Christian and pagan symbols are present in the picture. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine keep the nativity picture. Even though the tree looks better because they are more bold.
WILLROCKS10 ( talk) 12:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} THE MAGI IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW DID NOT VISIT AN INFANT IN A MANGER ,BUT HE WAS FOUND IN AN HOUSE AND COULD HAVE BEEN APPROX. 2 YEARS LATER.BECAUSE IT STATES THAT HEROD INSTRUCTED THE CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN 2 YEARS AND UNDER BECAUSE 2 YRS. HAD PASSED SINCE HE TALKED TO THE MAGI. MATTHEW IS THEREFORE MIS- REPRESENTED.
MATHEW-2:11 AND MATTHEW-2:16
75.203.4.188 (
talk)
03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The citation was already given and I don't believe additional sources are needed for this. English translations of Matthew clearly state that the Magi visited a house (there was no mention of a manger in Matthew) and Herod ordered all children up to age two to be slain and this age was chosen "according to the time which he (Herod) had exactly learned of the Wise-men" (from Matthew 2:16, American Standard Version) This WP article describes that the two gospel stories have different details, so I think we made that clear already. Also, in the "Commemorating Jesus' Birth" section, the second paragraph states, "According to popular tradition..." and then describes the popular understanding of the birth story. This section does not say, "according to the bible". I am certain that the average person (in the U.S. anyway) has no clue that popular tradition is a blend of two biblical birth stories. Nevertheless, this is the popular tradition, even if the popular traditions don't clearly match the biblical descriptions. I agree with the comments made by 75.203.4.188, but I'm not sure exactly where and how 75.203.4.188 would like the article to be edited. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this External link to this article.
122.177.51.205 ( talk) 10:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
but there is also one link Christmas Newswire in External link section that is also same website we are saying to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.4 ( talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear editor, regarding the contribution of your christmas item, you say 'its a time when God came to earth'.. of course it was Gods Son that came to earth, to Atone for Mans fall from grace, God sacrificed his Son, he did not sacrifice Himself!! 'he sent his only begotten Son' Regards; M. O'Dwyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.60.22 ( talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
From the introduction paragraph: "The supposed details of his birth are recorded in two of the Canonical gospels in the New Testament of the Bible." I added the emphasis to the word supposed, because it seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Different people have different beliefs. By calling them supposed details, the article seems to show an author's bias, as it implies that the details "recorded in two of the Canonical gospels...." aren't an accurate history of what actually occurred. I think intro could be changed so that it doesn't question one of the cornerstones of Christianity, while simultaneously avoiding calling into question the beliefs of non-Christians. Something like "Christians believe that the details of his birth are recorded in two of the...." would work better. Yes, I realize that there are multiple definitions for supposed, but the one that seems to apply to this context is definition 2A from www.m-w.com, which defines supposed as "held as an opinion : believed; also : mistakenly believed : imagined." -- Lacarids ( talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The third paragraph says, in part, "It is also an officially-recognized holiday in hundreds of nations. . ." Since there are only about 200 nations in the world (the UN has 193 members; the US recognizes 195 nations) and some do not celebrate Christmas (e.g. Saudi Arabia), the phrase "hundreds of nations" should be replaced by something like, "nearly all nations of the world." ( Henrodon ( talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC))
I recently
revamped the entire intro. and in doing so altered the very first two sentences in a way that I thought was quite important to change and fitting as part of the context of the newly written intro, but this was
reverted by Jordanson72 back to the old introductory sentence who claimed that it was "much more neutral, concise, and objective".
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“ | “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century to commemorate the the birth of Jesus Christ, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” | ” |
“ | “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally observed on December 25 (with alternative days of January 6, 7 and 19) to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” | ” |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The changes I made are minimal, they merely remove the assumption that Christmas is explicitly to commemorate the birth of Jesus as it stands the 21st century, even for the billions of people around the world who do not celebrate it for such reasons. The new second paragraph I've written clearly explains the objective fact that,
“ | “The holiday was initially instituted to commemorate solely the nativity of Jesus, and many celebrants continue to incorporate this element at the forefront of their celebrations. However, many customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus’ birth, and are today considered secular.” | ” |
Holidays like Halloween and Valentine's Day, which both originate as Christian religious holy days, have evolved over the centuries to represent many different things, and the intro. paragraphs to those articles reflect that. I think Christmas should also reflect this evolution by using the new introductory sentences that are less explicit in saying outright that Christmas is still a holiday only to commemorate the birth of Jesus (which, again, the article's second paragraph highlighted in blue above explains). It was clearly created as such by the Roman Church, which is explained in my altered second sentence, but even many Christians today (JWs, fundamentalists) disagree that it is a valid Christian holy day, and as is explained in the new intro, it has been banned numerous times within Christendom as "unbiblical, pagan". I think my newly-written first sentence is the best, objective phrasing to use as it explains that the holiday is celebrated by billions around the world (with a link to "Christmas worldwide"), and implies that many of these celebrants focus mostly if not completely on the secular aspects. I understand that this is a very controversial and touchy subject, but I'd like if a discussion could be fleshed out here about it.
Again, key difference between my opening sentence and the original: the original makes an explicit POV assumption of a certain one thing that Christmas Day is observed for without any appropriate context, and the new one does not make any such assumption, it simply relays the fact that it is celebrated by billions around the world. The entire first paragraph' is still dedicated to the celebration of the birth of Jesus, the explicit POV phrasing is merely altered. — FoxCE ( talk | contribs) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Christmas or Christmas Day is a Christian holiday that commemorates the birth of Jesus. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and is today celebrated by billions of people around the world, including many non-Christians. The exact birthday of Jesus is not known, and the date for Christmas is thought to have been selected to coincide with either the date of the Roman winter solstice, one of various ancient winter festivals, or the day exactly nine months after Jesus’ traditional conception date. | ” |
The sweeping changes made to the entire lede (all of which is disputed) by one editor, removed the previous one which had been carefully worded by many editors and agreed upon (see archive talk). Any new changes should be agreed upon as opposed to one highly disputed POV. LondonER19 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Christmas means different things to Christians and non-Christians. For Christians, in every country, it means a celebration of the birth of Jesus. For non-Christians in countries where it is a public holiday, it has a meaning quite independent of Christian belief. (I suppose that for non-Christians in countries where Christianity is ignored (some Islamic countries, China ...) it has no meaning at all.) The two meanings can and should be indicated, and should be indicated right at the start. That is the reasoning behind my attempt at an NPOV revision of the lead. Esoglou ( talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of this article does not reflect what reliable sources say about the holiday. An textbook titled Religions of the World states:
Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:
Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.
I have corrected the introduction to reflect this. Thanks, Anupam Talk 07:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be rewritten by a historian or scholar, not a christian. A Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus is ONLY ONE opinion of what Christmas is. The truth is that Christmas started as a Pagan ritual of lawlessness, that doesn't sound very Christian to me. This entire article, if it's to exist, needs to be fair and balanced and represent everything about Christmas, like it's origins and meaning to different people of different religions. Starting this article with that introduction sets the tone for nothing but lies and one sided opinions. It's also curious that the references are all from the Bible and Christian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyerhaus ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
After the recent slew of revisions, the lede as it stands now looks like it was written as a compromise statement of a divided committee, which it in fact is. I especially dislike the first sentence ("Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25[2][3][4] by billions of people around the world."), because it says essentially nothing of importance that isn't already common knowledge. The trouble we seem to be having is that we're using the word Christmas to refer to two distinct things but related things (the Christian holy day and the secular holiday), and we're trying to define it as if it's a single thing. I don't have a good suggestion for how to do it (some of you folks apparently have a lot more spare time to work on this than I do), but it needs work. It's worse now than it was before all the revisions. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that Esoglou has changed the Infobox picture from the image of a nativity scene with surrounding Christmas trees to one depicting merely the nativity. I don't have any problem with this personally, but browsing through the talk archives, I am seeing that there seems to have been a consensus in place that the image reflect both a religious and secular element of Christmas (see here, here and here for most recent discussion). Prior to the nativity/tree image there was a collage depicting several different elements, but it was deemed to be too "ugly" or "contrived" by users. I would agree, I am not in favor of a collage image. What are others' thoughts on what the Infobox image should depict? Are there any alternative images in the Wikimedia collection that depict both a religious and secular aspect? — FoxCE ( talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world". If i wrote that in a school essay i'd get a D- if lucky. No dictionary or encyclopedia would give such a vague definition where any reference to Christian observance, by over 2 billion adherents, has been airbrushed out. First searches; #1. A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus #2. the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus #3. a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ, #4. Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus. The rest of the lede is fine, but the opening sentence, as it currently stands, is not. Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd ( talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
“ | "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world". | ” |
I concur with User:Jordanson72 User:Esoglou in editing the sentence. This is because reliable sources reflect the suggested change, rather than the current sentence:
A textbook titled Religions of the World states:
Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:
Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.
I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam Talk 06:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth adding the opinion of the current Pope and taking it into account when defining Christmas:
The need to "discover ... the child" clearly implies that (according to the Pope at least) Christmas currently isn't about "the child" in the first place. AlexFekken ( talk) 08:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 3rd sentence, "much of the world's nations" should be changed to "many of the world's nations." (proper grammar)
146.57.87.182 (
talk)
01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a space between "Christmas" and "time" in the word "Christmastime" in the first sentence of the Stamps section. Although it is a viable word, it is distracting to users I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarpopo ( talk • contribs)
I just want to thank the Wikipedia community for putting together such a bad article and then protecting it. I'm a university professor and I'm always looking for good examples of why Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source and why students should never cite Wikipedia in a university paper. This particular page is so bad that I have a new example for teaching. Thank you! And happy holiday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.228.7 ( talk • contribs)
The most common meaning of "Yule" in modern times is simply Christmas. Here is Merriam-Webster: "YULE : the feast of the nativity of Jesus Christ : Christmas." In the Scandinavian languages, Jul/Yule is the usual word for Christmas. Before 1038, December 25 was called "Midwinter" in England. It became "Christmas" when the Yule celebration was assigned to that date. Kauffner ( talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't dare to change or write in this topic yet. But can anyone confirm that the word Yule is an old synonym in the English language to the word of Christmas? (Even if it's very seldom used nowdays.) That would be a nice piece of information under the topic Etymology. Secondly, does the word Yuletie exist in the English language? Eger to know! And if anyone familiar to this issue would make a change or statement in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desnobo ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be removed from 'See Also'.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some significant differences in the way Christmas/Nativity is observed in Eastern Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. That area really ought to be expanded, and an icon added to show some of the difference. You can see a nativity icon at this page http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nativity_icon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a paragraph in the Decorations section attempting to quote Jewish tradition -- "Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the foliage of beautiful trees, palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. " (Leviticus 23:40). Unfortunately, this entire chapter of Leviticus refers to Sukkot, an entirely different Jewish holiday which takes place at a completely different time of the year (a few days after Yom Kippur). Quoting this in reference to anything to do with Christmas is not only incorrect, but offensive. I have already removed the offending paragraph; just explaining my actions here. -- Veled ( talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gospel of Matthew also describes a visit by several Magi, or astrologers, who bring gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the infant Jesus.
Please change "the infant Jesus" to "the young child Jesus" because Matthew does NOT say Jesus was an infant at this time. Matthew says "child" or "young child".
SOURCE: read Mathew 2:8 in King James or any other reliable translation.
Nx9999 ( talk) 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be underplaying the role of the Magi and overplaying the role of "Santa Claus" in the article. For example, in Spain, the "three kings" or Magi still bring gifts on the 6th of January, and, although there is some incorporation of "Papa Noel" (Santa Claus by another name) due to commercialization for economic reasons as mentioned in the article (I think that part is well written), the majority of the Spanish still celebrate in the traditional manner, and children do not receive gifts until the 6th of January. You might want to check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.149.77 ( talk) 09:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
it was my understanding that the real birth date for Jesus was likely to have been September. Can anyone confirm that? Perhaps we should reference in the article? 25 December was rather an attempt to align beliefs in the "conquering sun" with the developing religion of Christianity. The other problem with the article as it's stands is that it doesn't make clear that Christmas was not generally a feast celebrated by the earliest Christians but rather the first Christmas mass was not seen until the 3rd century. This is because early Christians would not have regarded it as a particularly important event. More important was Easter which sat at the heart of the developing Christian community ie the death and resurrection of Christ. The growth in popularity of the nativity then only really took off in the late middle ages with a growing interest in childhood and the childhood of Jesus in particular. Hence the introduction of nativity scenes. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please chance the last line of paragraph 2 to a more professional style. It currently says, "or of some ancient pagan winter festival."
It should be:
"or of an ancient pagan winter festival."
The code would thus read:
or of an ancient pagan winter festival. [2] [3]
Instead of:
or of some ancient pagan winter festival. [2] [3]
184.96.242.66 ( talk) 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article uses Jesus' as possessive, but it should be Jesus's:
Commemorating Jesus' birth
should be:
Commemorating Jesus's birth
because Jesus is not plural. I see a few other cases of this in the text. Bmomjian ( talk) 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Countries 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." Religion_in_South_Korea Over 29.2% of Koreans now are Christians by last count, so they are not in the minority, plus the meaning of Christmas is different in Japan than in the US, which this page doesn't make clear. Please rewrite that lead. -- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello User:FoxCE, thanks for all of the effort you've put into the article. I reversed your change because it was unsupported by the references. According to Selling God: American religion in the marketplace of culture (Oxford University Press):
When the Catholic Church in the fourth century singled out December 25 as the birth date of Christ, it tried to stamp out the saturnalia common to the solstice season.
Similarly, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia states:
Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice).
The Church established Christmas near the dates of these pagan festivals in order to compete with them, and eventually eliminate them, or "stamp them out." As such, this wording should be reflected in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro section covers a topic that is also discussed in a later section, "Date of celebration." There is info at each location not contained in the other. Should they be merged? Should that paragraph in the intro be pared down to a 1-sentence summary, with complete discussion later? Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the section "Using the Julian calendar", in the third sentence:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Bulgaria should be added to the list, like:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Because in Orthodox Bulgaria Christmas is also celebrated on 25th December. this source can be used: http://goeasteurope.about.com/od/bulgariatravel/a/bulgariachristmastraditions.htm
95.87.196.100 ( talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark (There are more) celebrate Chrismas on december 24th, or Christmas Eve and get their presents then rather than on Christmas Morning. I would like if you could add that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.85.113 ( talk) 11:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Really? I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.247.227 ( talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
bib-arch.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 just wanted to cange the image deleted (?) with equivalent Image:Adorazione del Bambino - Beato Angelico.jpg -- Sailko ( talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph, there are two sentences which stood out as completely out-of-place and bad writing style. I suspect they are vandalism by the user "Kazuba" who, according to the editing history, added this text:
07:14, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Christmas (Christmas) "There is no mention of Christmas being celebrated by the early Christians in the New Testament. This holiday celebration is not supported by scripture. It was created by Pagan Christians. Christianity did not destroy Paganism. Paganism absorbed Christianity adding it's tradions and Pagan touch: holidays, song, dance, pageants, art, the giving of gifts, and music to it, etc. Otherwise Christianity would not have survived."
First of all "song, dance, ... music" -- very bad style. Secondly, "and music to it, etc." -- very, very bad style.
Thirdly, this clearly presupposes that christianity is accused of killing off pagans and tries to dispel this supposition. This also makes the article sound very biased.
Finally, "Otherwise Christianity would not have survived." -- What does this mean? How does Christmas' relation to pagan traditions have anything to do with the survival of Christianity? Bad logic, bad style.
I an not registered, so I cannot delete these sentences (it is protected from vandalism). For now could someone change it so something like this:
"As Christianity evolved in Europe over the years, various pagan traditions, especially the winter festivals, came to be celebrated as Christmas. These festivities include song and dance, pageants, and the giving of gifts. Nowadays, Christmas is celebrated as a festival in it's own right with several traditions, especially music, made specifically for the celebration of the holiday."
The beginning of this article is terrible- it's fine to discuss absorption of paganism by Christianity, but it really seems like whoever edited that part last was trying to make a point, as if they were offended by something. 24.21.165.109 ( talk) 09:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the Christmas controversy section, and perhaps this article needs to be rewritten somewhat because it focuses too much on the so-called modern secularization of christmas, yet misses on this important point:
Didn't christmas somewhat originate from the purley secular winter festival celebrations, especially Yule?.Like the article on Yule says,"Christmas, which is essentially the symbology and traditions of Yule with the Christian story of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth superimposed upon it".
And doesn't this article document how historically christians and non-christians have debated why and if the celebration of the nativity of jesus is important, or even nessesary?, yet somehow its now the most important and celebrated time of the year.
On top of that, wasn't the date of december 25th partially chosen historically to coincide with the idea of winter soltice celebrations?, as there is no biblical reference to dec 25 as a birth date for jesus.
What I'm getting at is instead of people complaining that the whole religious aspect behind christmas has been faded, maybe it should be considered that it was never really there in the first place, that maybe christmas was historically created as a reason for christians and others to gather and celebrate during the end of year/winter soltice.Maybe the Nativity of Jesus was a good excuse for such.
Logically speaking, isn't that a fair assumption?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And a little of topic, but doesn't this somewhat apply to Easter as well?, and its now semmingly secular traditions.From what I understand, the idea of egg-painting and decorating, and the fact that bunnies and hares are associated with easter, is due to the fact that eggs, laid by birds, and bunnies, which highly reproduce, are symbols of fertility, which coincides with the fact that easter is tied to the beggining of spring when new animals and plants are born and come out of hibernation, symbolizing another time of celebration.
So it seems both Christmas and Easter are historicaly tied with purely seasonal, secular celebrations, and are now celebrated mainly as such.How much does the history of christmas relate with easter, in how they truly originated?. Rodrigue ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, not just in terms of history, but just for why they are even significant.You say the religious aspect is still very important to many.But technically, I believe easter, representing the resurrection of christ, is the most, if not one of the most significant times of year for Christianity, as it is close/tied to the significance of the birth of christ.
But then why is Christmas seemingly so much more celebrated?, and why fewer even know the religious significance of easter.Because the secular origins of Christmas make it much more significant than easter.Even devout Christians regard Christmas as the most significant time of year, yet easter is not nearly as celebrated in terms of what it represents, even religiously. 67.71.60.47 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, heres what I basically said: Do you really think jesus's birth is that much more significant than his resurrection, as to justify why Christmas is so much more highly regarded among christians, and others than easter?.
Or perhaps, like I said, the secular element of Christmas is what makes it so much more important, regardless of how devoutly you celebrate it. Rodrigue ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So isn't Christmas %100 just Yule?, just with the artificially added Nativity of Jesus story being either a central, or non-existing part of celebrations, depending on who you are.
The why is there even a Christmas controversy section.the whole point is christmas didn't come from religious origins, so why complain about its secularization. Rodrigue ( talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not a devout Christian, but I totally support the view that an article about Christmas should be about the religious festival celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
Just because two events occur on the same day does not mean that a festival on that day is celebrating both of them. The celebrant chooses what they are celebrating. So just because Saturnalia or Sol Invictus or whatever happens to fall on 25 December does not mean that any festivities on that day are celebrating either one of them. Either this page is about Christmas, or it is about Festivals on 25 December, but it should not, IMHO, try to be about both of them. 86.146.121.86 ( talk) 08:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas...and so I will: Merry Christmas to all! Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi vobiscum, amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if his irrelevant section will even last, but yeah, don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia anyways. Rodrigue ( talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it could not. A very Merry Christmas to all! TheCormac ( talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with being friendly. Merry Christmas all. Phoenix1177 ( talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW. What a Grinch! "Don't see the point of saying such a politically incorrect statement in an academic encyclopedia"... Good God, where is the world going to when we have to put someone down just for saying 'Merry Christmas'? Would you say the same for someone who said "Happy Hanukkah"? "Happy Birthday"? "Happy Anniversary"? Merry Christmas to all... or if you don't celebrate it, just enjoy your day! 206.248.156.132 ( talk) 12:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to mention that the picture description about the Slovenian Santa is wrong:
The name Ded Moroz is Russian, it's just not written in the Russian alphabet. In Slovenia it is Dedek Mraz.
And translation will be Grandfather of Frost, not father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpykc ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Secondly he isn't Slovene, well not just Slovene. He is the communist replacement of the Christian Sveti Miklavž or historicaly St. Nicholas of Myra and the Capitalist Santa Clause, so many of the former communist countries make up their own stories about him.
Dedek Mraz comes on the night of 31 December so be good :)
Lenko 89.212.183.159 ( talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
St. Francis was the first to put together a live nativity scene. He did this as a teaching tool. It caught on and has been popularized since then.
(This is my first time commenting so I am sorry if it's wrong)
I thought I should just say that almost everyone in Germany celebrates the kristkind or Christkind and not just in the South. I could try to edit it myself although it is protected or whatever, but I thought I should just point it out to any administrators if any of them should read this.
84.68.13.231 ( talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Mike 24/12/07
I would like to suggest this external link to the above discussion:
I found it helpful, and not offensive at all. Merry Christmas! AMC0712 ( talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, TheCormac, in the spirit of wikipedia, you should be bold and change that! If you have access to better resources/information, then add them in! MightyAtom ( talk) 07:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Constantinian Origins" section (section 2.2.1 as of this writing) is a mess. Poor grammar, punctuation, and capitalization; redundant information (multiple editors?); etc., to the point that the section is barely readable. I don't want to touch it because I don't have the requisite information, but it needs attention from someone who does have the information and is capable of writing a coherent English sentence. JBJD ( talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I alone in this or does anyone else think the infobox picture is too busy? The individual elements are too small to even tell what is going on. Also, the licensing is problematic - several of the constituent images are GFDL and one is CC - they aren't mixable. I really think a single picture of a Christmas tree, a crop of Image:Happy new year 06463.jpg, or a manger scene would look nicer. -- B ( talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a minor mistake using the wrong version of sun as in sun god i wanted to edited but couldn't. Geeko8800gtx ( talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont really think that this is necessary as it impolies that the information will be changing because of the passing of christmas which it isnt, not much use otherwise. 81.129.23.206 ( talk) 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a real encyclopedia or a christian website... since when is christmas a celebration of the birth of jesus? since 2000 years ago, what about before that? when the egyptions were celebrating the birth of : HORUS ( egypt Dec 25th, 3000 BC ) .. Attis ( greece Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Mithra ( Persia Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. Krishna ( india Dec 25th, 900 BC ) .. Dionysus ( greece Dec 25th, 500 BC ) ..
I can go on, but I think my point is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee hax ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus." is a biased first sentence. The rest of the article makes it very clear that this holiday is also heavily connected with celebrating the winter solstice. I propose a different first sentence: "Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the coming of winter and the birth of Jesus." This is a pretty balanced sentence to my mind. Wrad ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There are of course several winter festivals which Christmas took over, but there is no one I'm pretty sure who is celebrating Christmas as the beginning of winter, and if they are simply celebrating winter they are not celebrating Christmas. To celebrate Christmas is to by definition celebrate Jesus' birth. If you're celebrating the solstice you're celebrating something else. Romans who celebrated the Saturnalia at the same time Christians were celebrating Christmas were certainly not celebrating Christmas, even if they had a celebration on the same day. Roy Brumback ( talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important that in the "Christian Origins" section someone should add this sentence/phrase: "Many unlearned and ignorant people today think that December 25th is the day of Jesus' birth" even though the church itself has denied this claim". Reinoe ( talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
People in the southern hemisphere celebrating Christmas today are obviously not celebrating anything to do with winter, nor are they celebrating the summer solstice. Roy Brumback ( talk) 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states, "[I]n the Greek Orthodox world [Christmas] is in early January." The Website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which uses the "new" calendar) indicates that the nativity of Jesus Christ is observed on December 25. Yes, I realize that is just one archdiocese but I doubt that it's unique. --anon 70.23.139.160 ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
NOT ONLY are there "other Eastern Orthodox churches...," the vast MAJORITY of Eastern Orthodox Churches do NOT recognize the Gregorian or so-called 'revised' Julian, and they still celebrate the Julian 25 December which is 07 January on the Gregorian; The Russian Orthodox Churches and faithful alone outnumber all other Orthodox churches that follow the Gregorian/Revised calendar. Therefore, the "some" and "other" erroneous quantifies should be changed to "majority of Eastern Orthodox churches." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.140.107 ( talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out a minor error:
On December 19, 2000, the decision of Ganulin v. United States was upheld by the 'Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals', not the 'U.S. Supreme Court'. On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the case certiorari, but this only means that the body chose not to try the case, not that it affirmed the Six District Court’s ruling.
Could anyone fix this error? Thank you!
Suggestion: "Christmas is an annual holiday that ostensibly celebrates the birth of Jesus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the first line to: "Christmas is a Christian holiday and popular secular festival celebrated on December 25.", but it gets reverted. Are we denying the secular part or does this cause offense in some other way? Stronimo ( talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should point out I haven't read all the (I assume volumes) of talk about the first line before. I made my suggestion after coming to the article, reading it (especially the first line/paragraph) and not seeing a reflection of how I understand Christmas celebrated my urban North American slice of the world. Perhaps it is a worldview problem. Hard to reflect all. 99.247.120.178 ( talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Commemorating the birth of Jesus section, someone had scripted the first few Bible passages to appear in the body of the article, only instead of Bible passages it was all cap nonsense about INSANE CLOWN POSSY WOOT WOOT! I fixed.
As for the comments below on Language Bias, i suggest further grounds for removing the "some who later claimed to be Christians" wordplay. Its just redundant, in a grammatical and linguistic sort of way. Look up Christian and you wont get one definition, youll get something along the lines of multiple groups of Christians. You also dont need to say "some who claim" because its implied that if they are Christians that is because they are calling themselves that.
Eric Forest ( talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to the bias in the following sentence:
"According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today."
It is not for a Wikipedia article to make a judgment on what a "true Christian" is. The cited source does not imply the "some who later claimed to be" language and stating that it does is dishonest. I would also like to note that this paragraph seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a Jehovah's Witness publication. I suggest the statement be evaluated and changed to more accurately reflect the cited source and the "some who later claimed to be Christian" phrase be replaced with something more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.231 ( talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Jesus's birth, not Jesus' birth. Unless Christmas is now the celebration of the birth of several people called Jesu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.209.81 ( talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Decorations"picknels section, it says large decorations such as illuminated sleighs and snowmen and outdoor lights only appear in Europe to a lesser extent than in other parts of the world. Speaking as someone from the UK, this is incorrect as nearly every house has some form of outdoor Christmas lights and large decorations. I am unable to edit the page because of its semi-protection, but I believe that part of it needs to be changed. After eight mints are a traditional snack.
I will look at it and make changes if neccesary Αδελφος ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The Greek (χ) chi has been used as an abbreviation since Constantine's Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. The practice began long before the 16th c. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.180.104 ( talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It is also inaccurate that the term Santa Claus is only used in North America, Australia and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.241.214 ( talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to omit a great deal of relevant information regarding worldwide secular observance practices; namely, the shift of Christmas in developed nations from a strictly religious holiday to a holiday based on a tradition of consumerism. The current article pays only a small tribute to the economic significance of the celebration, despite widespread commercialization and noteworthy analysis of such practices.
I scanned through the talk pages, and the word "consumerism" is mentioned not once, even though the increasing secularization of developed societies has rendered standard Christmas observance to be a widely practiced ritual of buying.
The consumption rituals associated with the observance of Christmas deserve some mention in the article, along with a link to the article on consumerism. Readers looking for information on typical Christmas observances should be presented with a balanced view of the modern Christmas ritual, along with links to articles explaining the social dynamics of consumerism.
This should be discussed here on the talk page before insertion, since any edits to the page without prior consensus are sure to spark controversy. Stevenm55 ( talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You both make excellent points about the consumerism and apparently secular nature of this holiday. The problem is that I think you (and many others) imagine that at some point, people somehow understood the "true" meaning of Christmas, but we lost that meaning some time after the industrial revolution of Western civilizations at which time, Christmas bacame about presents and shoppping. This is simply not true. Here is a general breakdown of the history: long before Christ's birth, most agrarian civilizations in the Northern hemisphere celebrated the winter solstice (or gods representing the sun) through feasts and other traditions (decorated trees, yule logs, wreaths, etc). Christianity largely ignored these celebrations until proto-orthodox christianity began to emerge in the first few centuries of the Common Era. These early Christian churches denounced these winter celebrations as pagan. Nevertheless, Christian leaders could not stop these celebrations as they were so deeply ingrained in the cultures of these civilizations. Christianity wrestled with this issue for centuries. Should they embrace the holiday, but give it a Christian twist or should they condemn it all together? For centuries (and maybe still today) the debate continued. In the United States, Christmas celebrations did not become ingrained in the culture until about 120-150 years ago. What helped spark this renewed interest? Retailers, for the most part. The holiday as we know it today, was developed as a retail marketing campaign that capitalized on long-standing traditions. Where did Rudolph the Red Nosed Reigndeer come from? Who introduced the concept of Santa to the masses? When did gift-giving (and of course shoppinf) become popular and who pushed this tradition? The answer is that retailers, not Christ or Christianity, influenced this cultural phenomenon. I don't mean to discredit the importance of Christ's birth, but I do mean to say that Christ's existence has little to do with Christmas (past or present). Even in the behavior of true Christians, you will find that Christ only plays a part of a small percentage of their Christmas behaviors. It's really a fascinating story, but most people don't realize from where modern Christmas emerged. I think that's the story we should tell on Wikipedia rather than concoct some story about how the true meaning of the holiday was lost when some retailers and non-christians declared a war on the true meaning of Christmas. It's a hybrid holiday with strong secular roots and it was only recently named after Christ to appease Christian leaders who otherwise opposed these pagan holiday traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point (you make some good ones) but historians generally do not feel that the origin of Christmas is up for dispute. In addition to cannonical documents, many other early church writings (letters, manuscripts, etc) clearly document the debate among early church leaders as well as the existence of these winter traditions before the Common Era. I guess my point is this, you can't change the name of a pagan holiday and then say it is somehow a new and separate holiday. For example, if we changed Halloween to Christian-ween and then claim that the holiday is meant to celebrate the baptism of Christ, it's not really a new Christian holiday. This is especially true if 90% of the behaviors and customs of this "new" holiday still mirror those of the original halloween. This holiday hijacking would be made worse if people started saying that we need to get back to the "true" meaning of the holiday as if it were always about Christ's baptism rather than costumes and candy. I don't propose changing the article based on this conversation, but it would make me more comfortable with the content if these historical points were considered as well as the counter view that the original and pure version of Christmas has been somehow been tarnished by consumerism and secular behaviors/customs. Perhaps this discussion really belongs on the Christmas Controversy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"so-called pagan 'origin'"? Really? Even among Christians, nearly all of the behaviors exhibited during this season are pagan. You can say that Christmas is about Christ's birth, but your behavior says something different. Your behavios says you are pagan. (of course, when I use the term "you", I am using it as a general pronoun and I'm not targeting a certain person).Also, December 25 was not "practically every other day of the year". Please research Mithras, Sol Invictus, Pan, the list goes on. When were their birthdays? Why was Christmas switched from January 6 to December 25? Was this a coincidence? I guess I agree that it's not fair to call modern-day Christmas a pagan holiday. I'm also not sure it's fair to call it a Christian holiday either, but either way, please don't any of you forget that early Christians had a difficult time competing with pagan traditions and beliefs. It is a historical fact that dwliberate actions were taken to "christianize" these people and customs. There is nothing wrong with this, just don't try to pretend that Christianity evolved without any influence from pagans. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Elielilamasabachthani. And I also have to say that, for Christians such as myself, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. Sure I enjoy getting presents, but I don't view Christmas as getting holiday; it's a giving holiday, and you should give to those in need. (Oh, by the way, I thought it was Eloi eloi lama sabachthani. But maybe there is different ways of spelling it) Αδελφος ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
So wouldn't it be much more accurate to conclude from all this that, de facto and regardless of history, Christmas is currently a secular event with Christian and non-Christian elements? Much (in fact very much) of the article, as it stands now, explicitly contradicts the initial statement that Christmas is a "Christian holiday". You might as well define a horse as "a brown animal ..." and then spend several pages describing all horses that are not brown as if they were exceptional. AlexFekken ( talk) 06:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Side comment: Someone earlier hypothetically suggested changing "Halloween to Christian-ween." In actual fact, the word Halloween apparently originated as a contraction of "All Hallows Even," referring to the eve of All Saints Day. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the date for All Saints Day (November 1) was deliberately chosen by the church in an attempt to supplant the Celtic pagan festival of Samhain (October 31) the way Christmas apparently supplanted earlier pagan solstice festivals. (Since the ecclesiastical calendar follows the Jewish custom of counting the day as starting at sunset, All Saints Day technically begins at sunset on October 31.) It didn't work, however. Halloween as celebrated today is not a Christian holiday by any stretch of the imagination. It's really Samhain with a different name. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 04:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is in the article..
This is misleading since clicking on " Merry Christmas" takes you to an article which states that the first recorded use of Merry Christmas was in 1565. Helsingann ( talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
— Raf45Martinez ( talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
We err to say that the Roman significance of 25 December was anything but religious. In the first paragraph, "...may have initially been chosen to correspond with either a historical Roman festival or the winter solstice," should in no uncertain terms reference "a historical religious Roman festival."
CalebPM (
talk)
04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs some serious sprucing up before Christmas this year. It is not at all comprehensive in its treatment of the festival and its celebration, and in places is poorly written and badly ordered. I've made a start by restoring the original order, with the section on the nativity coming just after etymology, and before the very lengthy historical section, which most readers will be less interested in. I've also begun to add a more comprehensive account of how it is celevbrated. The sections on decorations and Santa Claus need work too, and there needs to be a section on important worship events, and other events of the Christmas period, religious and secular. Xan dar 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently says: In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in North America and Ireland) is a popular mythological figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children. Two issues to discuss
Instead, perhaps, say something like:
I think the word "corruption" is strongly misused in this article. Linguistic borrowings hardly merit the connotation of "To render unsound or impure by the contamination of putrid matter; to infect, taint, render morbid." (Oxford English Dictionary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.101.108.227 ( talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The name Kris Kringle was a corruption into the English language? As stated above, the word corrupt has negative connotations. I will change it to a more neutral point, if you don't mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.146.141 ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Haven't there been a few court cases since 1984? Isn't the standard now that such displays are OK if they incorporate other seasonal displays, but that if a level of gov't displays ONLY a creche it IS a first-amendment "establishment of religion" problem-- JimWae ( talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You listen to too much talk radio. Certain municipalities have adopted "Creche +" policies concerning publicly owned/displayed Christmas decorations - and right-wing American media outlets certainly like to imply this is the "national standard" as ammo for their "culture war" - but Donnelly is the definitive case in regards to publicly owned and displayed religious symbols. City Nativity displays (and similar religion-specific iconography) are allowed without regard to other religions, ideas, expressions, etc. This coincides with a general shift toward the secular in regards to Christmas over the last couple decades in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.237.25 ( talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
With this edit, I've restructured the entire article. I know there has been some controversy about the placement of the "Nativity of Jesus" section, but this clearly belongs as a "Celebration" subcategory, and I've listed it first there. The "history" section must come before the "celebration" section, as with any other Wikipedia article. I hope we can, together, further improve the readability and flow of the history section, because currently the "Pre-Christian" history section does not flow well at all, it just lists short summaries of Sol Invictus and Winter festivals. We need to incorporate a flow here, explaining the influence of these festivals on Christmas in a historical context. Please, I hope people can come here to discuss how to improve this. The article's body has been messed up for the longest time, and I think it's about time we really went about fixing it. — CIS ( talk | stalk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we need something on the dating difference between Orthodox and Western celebrations. We need more on the economic impact of Christmas. Something on Christmas Carols. I also think we could use a short "Christmas Traditions worldwide" section to link up with the main article on that topic. On an allied idea, do we want to mention special Christmas foods? other ideas? Xan dar 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Article says oldest form is Cristes maesse (1038) but the OED gives Xpes. maessan (a1123 OE. Chron. an. 1101) and Cristes maesse (a1134 OE. Chron. an. 1127). 4 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.108 ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
he was noted for the care of Children, generosity, and the giving of gifts. His feast on the 6th of November came to be celebrated in many countries by the giving of gifts. This should say "the 6th of December". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliroze ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Remember, it's not about what you get, but the thought that counts. Also, the mostimportant is the time being spent with your family. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.39.91.241 (
talk)
21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This article falsely states that Christmas is on December 25th, which is true. However, for a large portion of Christians, it is on January 7th. Therefore, I think that should be included in the introduction, and the infobox.
Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all Christians, and all Christians should be included in this page. -- 77.122.109.26 ( talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"some eastern national churches, including those of Russia, Georgia, Egypt, Armenia, the Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia celebrate on January 7"
Armenia celebrates on January 6.
Kusko ( talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Montenegro celebrates on January 7. Bozocv ( talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a very missleading and incorrect statement, both politically and in terms of factual accuracy. The Christian world respects two calendars and neither is the pivotal one. If you're insisting on facts, the Gregorian calendar has stuck to the dates which were celebrated 2000 years ago, while the Julian calendar has introduced reforms and modifications in terms of dates some centuries ago. Orthodox churches did not "reject the Julian calendar" but simply continued to celebrate according to an ancient calendar. Nevertheless apart from the dates the Christmas remains the primary festivity for entire Christendom. Noone has the right to monopolize that holiday and declare other side to be a pariah, especially the 200,000,000+ Orthodox Christian believers. NeroN_BG
-I agree with you that "neither is the pivotal one", but one should make sure that people understand that the Gregorian calendar is the ACCURATE one!According to the Julian calendar, the tropic year is EXACTLY 365.25 days long, which is WRONG!Unless you don't mind the Spring equinox, which should fall around the 21st of March, advancing till it falls in January after a few millenaries... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.123.139 ( talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How would including January 7th in the infobox be confusing? The fact of the matter is that people of the Orthodox faith celebrate Christmas on January 7th. Not December 25th. Trust me, they don't follow the Julian calendar in their daily lives. So, one part of Christianity celebrated Christmas on Friday. Another part will celebrate it the 7th of January. Because the calendar used by this wiki is Julian, January 7th should be included in the infobox. It won't be confusing at all. -- TheDmitryPetrov ( talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(Page division needed?) The purpose of this article is, in my opinion, unclear and mixed. It attempts to explain both the cultural tradition and Christmas as well as Christmas as a Christian festival. While these traditions are obviously heavy linked, they are still distinct enough to perhaps be split as articles. Often explaining the folklore, pagan, secular etc parts of Christmas is impeded by the religious element, and vice versa I am sure. For example, description of this festival as an iteration of a larger and older Eurasian tradition is prohibited. Also the description of many non-Christian parts of the season are either omitted or non-rigorously alleged to be linked or even born out of Christianity. I am concerned, because many of the people who see the Christmas are looking for a description of the cultural festival (Santa, presents, trees, nuts etc) [perhaps a project outside of the Christianity portal) rather than seeing a religious focused page with some concessions to the festival they were looking for. Sorry for being so wordy, and it is a good article. Protectthehuman ( talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, that the article may need to be split. The problem is, there isn't much left on the religious side if you take out the secular traditions. Sure, there are special church services, but just about every other tradition of the Christian Christmas is derived from a secular or pagan tradition. The religious side of the article would likely be limited to a few biblical accounts of the birth story and a celebration of the importance of Christ in Christian traditions and beliefs. The rest of this holiday is some Christianized version of a pagan or secular practice. Now matter how we cut it, Christmas cannot avoid the fact that it evolved from pagan roots. I would argue that in the actual, observable behaviors of celebrants, Christmas is a secular holiday with a few vague links to Christianity. Even the bible makes little of the birth of Christ. To Christians, it is their belief in Christ’s Immaculate Conception, his teachings as an apocalyptic rabbi and his eventual death/resurrection that matter most. Every historical record on the subjects points to one conclusion: The birth of Christ would not have become important to Christianity if there wasn't a desire by religious people to Christianize longstanding, pagan, winter festivals. These festivals and traditions were so ingrained in societies that even converts to Christianity were not willing to give them up. The solution? Rename the holiday and insert some Christian messages into it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I could just suggest that we remove this holiday from the Christianity portal, but that wouldn’t be fair either. The truth is, early Christians were successful at integrating Christ into this holiday. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 18:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be troublesome in other similar articles, eg Easter. Halloween seems to set some kind of precedent for involving religion in the summary, and then disentangling it into its own section. However that is an odd example, as Halloween, in my opinion, is a festival that the religious have largly discontinued their association with. Definitely this is a difficult issue that would require a large consensus and a lot of work. However, this seems doubtful as even the guidance for editing this article seems to pull it back to Christianity, insisting a definition where everything else is secondary. I've been reading through the talk section, and this just seems like a massive unresolved problem. Protectthehuman ( talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I now agree that it does not make sense to have two articles (or three), but I must question some of your assertions. You said “The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those…” The problem is, the holiday is about 99% non-christian no matter how you add it up. Christmas is really only a Christian holiday in name. Other than a few church services and nativity scenes (which are not historically accurate), there is no Christianity in Christmas. You contradicted your very own argument when you said that caroling is a “Christian” part of the holiday and that Santa has no pagan origin (a claim which you immediately disprove in your own statement). I wish we had a few more credentialed religious historians here. Your understanding of this issue is on par with most of my “Comparitive Religions 101” students. You’ve come a long way over the years that I’ve been reading your edits, but you are still missing too much of this history to be able to speak with any authority (in my opinion). So, what should we do? I’m not relly sure how much the history matters since this is an article mostly about Christmas today. It just bothers me when people are ignorant of the history and claim that Christmas (as we know it today) was not the result of a deliberate campaign to Christianize pagan and secular traditions. As an evangelical religion, Christianity should never apoligize for melding its self into the traditions we now know as Christmas. This practice is not theologically inconsistent with biblical teachings. All I ask is that everyone respect this history rather than resist it. You can’t just change a holiday’s name and then claim some unqualified ownership of it.
Elielilamasabachthani (
talk)
17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
According to Sir James George Frazer the church encouraged Christians to celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus because of the enourmous popularity of the Pagan holiday, even among Christians. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PT379&dq=mithras+christmas+birthday&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Hopefully some secular person can add these important historical facts. I won't bother as I have better things to do than deal with religious fanatics who have hijacked the majority of articles dealing with Christianity on wikipedia. 201.230.48.220 ( talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 and A Happy New Year on Jan 1, 2010. http://my.calendars.net/michaelmlazo
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.237.100 ( talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Opening sentence has an intense "don't change" comment stemming from a 2006 dispute, so I'll comment even though the change was sufficiently minor. I tweaked it turning an adjective into a prepositional clause so that it's factually accurate. (The old version, to an unaware reader, would literally imply that non-christian nations which observe Christmas do so in secular celebration of Jesus's birth, akin to the US's Martin Luther King Day.) Tiny inaccuracy, small tweak. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 10:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
stalk) 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Nonsense. This is primarily a Christian festival and this should be reflected as such. Minority attitudes towards it, while important and worthy of inclusion, should not be presented in a weirdly revisionist light, nor in conflict with the primary focus of the day for the vast majority of individuals who observe it. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση ( talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The more I think over this and read over the FARC and GAR, the more I think a clear consensus is needed about the scope of the article. Right now, the two potential scopes impossibly tangled. Is this article about the Anglo-American Christians' "Christmas", the Western Europe's Dec 25 Feast of various names, all Christian Jesus-birth commemorations regardless of name or date, or all Christmas celebrations including the celebrations of non-christian nations. As is, the scope is constantly changing from sentence to sentence. If it's all, the lede is inaccurate. If it's by definition the Dec 25 Christian Feast Day, then broad swaths of the article are factually inaccurate. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Under controversy it says, "In the private sphere also, it has been alleged". Who is alleging this? Without reference to specific groups or persons this sounds like a "straw man argument". The response to these supposed allegations linked to a particular group, but the allegation itself is not proven.
In discussions of the appearance of the wise men (magi), it should be mentioned that the biblical account states that King Herod ordered the killing of male children two or under when the magi did not return to him after seeing Jesus. This indicates that they were not in attendance at Christ's birth {"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Matthew 2:16 NAS)}. Also, the magi did not see Jesus in a manger or stable, but in a house {"And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11 NAS)}, which is another indication that they were not in attendance at the time of Jesus' birth. 98.149.205.236 ( talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We should also mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated even before the introduction of Christianity. Bosniak ( talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Cme on Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση, maybe Bosniak wasn't literally accurate since it wasn't called Christmas pre-Christ, but his point is valid. I do acknowledge that this is covered throughout the article and in this discussion, so probably no need to go further here. Nearly every custom and behavior associated with Christmas existed before Christ. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Wikipedia for including accurate information about the origin of the Christmas feast, better known as Yule or Winter Solstice. It's rare to see factually accurate information on here. I nominate the relevant portions of this article as an example for all to follow. :) 81.141.76.119 ( talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The article on Christmas is good but the author seems not to know the reason why it is placed in the calendar when it is. The feast is placed purposely then because it is the time when the sun begins to increase, just as the Feast of John the Baptist in June is set for the time when the sun begins to decrease - based on John the Baptists own words of "He must increase and I must decrease." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donockley ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "Current tradition in several Latin American countries (such as Venezuela and Colombia) holds that while Santa makes the toys, he then gives them to the Baby Jesus, who is the one who actually delivers them to the children's homes, a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States."
I have heard of no such tradition and cannot find any reference anywhere to it. Santa Claus is an imported figure of the traditional Christmas celebration but to my knowledge nobody in those countries holds that Santa Claus makes the toys and gives them to Baby Jesus. Please state the source of this claim, which I believe to be false.
Pbueno ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Pablo 12/30/2009
Referring to [2],
The lede linked to that, so should future ledes. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the change, whoever did it. But although Christmas is not defined as a *Christian* holiday any more, the part of the definition that says "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is still a violation of policy as it is not in agreement with the source definition. Those who do not celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday obviously do not necessarily do so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" either. It is still disputable OR and POV to assume and state that they do.
Of course the first sentence in the second paragraph ("Although a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians") now needs updating as well. Something like simply "Christmas is widely celebrated by Christians and non-Christians" might be better. AlexFekken ( talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Just my two cents here. I think AlexFekken is making some very valid points here. Today, Christmas may be a Christian holiday, but that's not all it is. I will support any edits that clarify this. I think this is the best way to convey to readers that this holiday is both Christian and secular at the same time. Perhaps the same can be said about Easter as well.
Elielilamasabachthani (
talk)
15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be very interested in seeing at least two definitions (secular based and Christian based) in this article. Disambigulation may be necessary, but it seems to me there is room for this to fit nicely into one article. What about a sentence that describes Christmas as a Christian holiday for many Christians, but at the same time, a secular holiday for many people. Merriiam-Webster would be a good citation for this fact. The American Heritage Dictionary also defines Christmas as "Christmastide" in its third definition. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The "History" section has two sentences that should be connected in some way, since their separation suggests that they are not related. The early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 A.D.) thought this dating plausible and suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date.[50] According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after nine months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25th.[49] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation on March 25, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.
I'd edit it myself, but this page is locked...presumably to prevent godless marketers from saying Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.196.28 ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
christmas is about sharing what you have and feeling good for sharing what you have, if a person is not feeling good or doesnt want to it is said for being selfish at christmas.written by a member of st.pauls and all hallows school n17 in tottenham england thank you for listening or taking the time to read this bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.236.12 ( talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(| Class = "wiki table" | - ! Language! Merry Christmas |- | Welsh || Nadolig Llawen]] || Nadolig Llawen
ur gsay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.69.238 ( talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. Xan dar 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)
{{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)
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)
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)
christmas is a time of getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.55.201 ( talk) 09:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
It;s Christmas time not "Christmastime". N00bs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.203.46 ( talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article:
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:
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:
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I will leave comments in a few days.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
{{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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
In Norway, and I believe in the rest of Scandinavia at least, we celebrate Christmas Eve. This is the night that we open gifts, eat with family and go to church. Though, the 25th is the official holiday, where most stores and such are closed.
i can confirm that norwegians celebrate christmas eve. therefore i suggest that dates in all countries are listed with area listed as well. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.208.108.222 (
talk)
16:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
However, why the 24th is the day we celebrate I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.244 ( talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WIKIPEDIA - land of the non-secular holiday wiki endtrances and realistic historic origians (see Eostre) - the FoxNewsification of News. "If it doesnt fit my definition, it's not the right defintion." - nickschuyler@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.206.124 ( talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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:
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 05:46, 27 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To remove the inconsistency that is currently in the article perhaps the first sentence should be changed from "Christmas ... on December 25 to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ..." to "Christmas ... on December 25. Most Christians celebrate it to commemorate the birth of Jesus, ...".
I almost left out "Most" to minimise the change but then realised this wouldn't be correct. I think "Most Christians and certain non-Christians" would also be defend-able, perhaps even better, but I think that the current suggestion that everybody who celebrates Christmas does so "to commemorate the birth of Jesus" is too obviously incorrect to leave it there. AlexFekken ( talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Please provide source/citation for the above claims. Furthermore, the etymology of the English word "mass" refutes the argument in your last statement above (it's modern usage as reference to the Eucharist/Christian religious service developed from words used in the service itself and thus does not predate Christianity). See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass Not sure which "pagan" language to which you refer above, but the Latin for celebration was celebrare with festum/festa being the Latin for festival/feast, from which the German word also derives. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-fest Prtwhitley ( talk) 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
EXCUSE ME! How ruse of you! PBL1998 is not my sockpuppet!
WILLROCKS10 ( talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
stalk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that the nativity scene is a better depiction of the holiday. It seems more holistic and I like the fact that Christian and pagan symbols are present in the picture. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine keep the nativity picture. Even though the tree looks better because they are more bold.
WILLROCKS10 ( talk) 12:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} THE MAGI IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW DID NOT VISIT AN INFANT IN A MANGER ,BUT HE WAS FOUND IN AN HOUSE AND COULD HAVE BEEN APPROX. 2 YEARS LATER.BECAUSE IT STATES THAT HEROD INSTRUCTED THE CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN 2 YEARS AND UNDER BECAUSE 2 YRS. HAD PASSED SINCE HE TALKED TO THE MAGI. MATTHEW IS THEREFORE MIS- REPRESENTED.
MATHEW-2:11 AND MATTHEW-2:16
75.203.4.188 (
talk)
03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The citation was already given and I don't believe additional sources are needed for this. English translations of Matthew clearly state that the Magi visited a house (there was no mention of a manger in Matthew) and Herod ordered all children up to age two to be slain and this age was chosen "according to the time which he (Herod) had exactly learned of the Wise-men" (from Matthew 2:16, American Standard Version) This WP article describes that the two gospel stories have different details, so I think we made that clear already. Also, in the "Commemorating Jesus' Birth" section, the second paragraph states, "According to popular tradition..." and then describes the popular understanding of the birth story. This section does not say, "according to the bible". I am certain that the average person (in the U.S. anyway) has no clue that popular tradition is a blend of two biblical birth stories. Nevertheless, this is the popular tradition, even if the popular traditions don't clearly match the biblical descriptions. I agree with the comments made by 75.203.4.188, but I'm not sure exactly where and how 75.203.4.188 would like the article to be edited. Elielilamasabachthani ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this External link to this article.
122.177.51.205 ( talk) 10:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
but there is also one link Christmas Newswire in External link section that is also same website we are saying to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.4 ( talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear editor, regarding the contribution of your christmas item, you say 'its a time when God came to earth'.. of course it was Gods Son that came to earth, to Atone for Mans fall from grace, God sacrificed his Son, he did not sacrifice Himself!! 'he sent his only begotten Son' Regards; M. O'Dwyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.60.22 ( talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
From the introduction paragraph: "The supposed details of his birth are recorded in two of the Canonical gospels in the New Testament of the Bible." I added the emphasis to the word supposed, because it seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Different people have different beliefs. By calling them supposed details, the article seems to show an author's bias, as it implies that the details "recorded in two of the Canonical gospels...." aren't an accurate history of what actually occurred. I think intro could be changed so that it doesn't question one of the cornerstones of Christianity, while simultaneously avoiding calling into question the beliefs of non-Christians. Something like "Christians believe that the details of his birth are recorded in two of the...." would work better. Yes, I realize that there are multiple definitions for supposed, but the one that seems to apply to this context is definition 2A from www.m-w.com, which defines supposed as "held as an opinion : believed; also : mistakenly believed : imagined." -- Lacarids ( talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The third paragraph says, in part, "It is also an officially-recognized holiday in hundreds of nations. . ." Since there are only about 200 nations in the world (the UN has 193 members; the US recognizes 195 nations) and some do not celebrate Christmas (e.g. Saudi Arabia), the phrase "hundreds of nations" should be replaced by something like, "nearly all nations of the world." ( Henrodon ( talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC))
I recently
revamped the entire intro. and in doing so altered the very first two sentences in a way that I thought was quite important to change and fitting as part of the context of the newly written intro, but this was
reverted by Jordanson72 back to the old introductory sentence who claimed that it was "much more neutral, concise, and objective".
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“ | “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century to commemorate the the birth of Jesus Christ, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” | ” |
“ | “Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally observed on December 25 (with alternative days of January 6, 7 and 19) to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and remains one of the central feasts in the Christian liturgical year.” | ” |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The changes I made are minimal, they merely remove the assumption that Christmas is explicitly to commemorate the birth of Jesus as it stands the 21st century, even for the billions of people around the world who do not celebrate it for such reasons. The new second paragraph I've written clearly explains the objective fact that,
“ | “The holiday was initially instituted to commemorate solely the nativity of Jesus, and many celebrants continue to incorporate this element at the forefront of their celebrations. However, many customs associated with Christmas developed independently of the commemoration of Jesus’ birth, and are today considered secular.” | ” |
Holidays like Halloween and Valentine's Day, which both originate as Christian religious holy days, have evolved over the centuries to represent many different things, and the intro. paragraphs to those articles reflect that. I think Christmas should also reflect this evolution by using the new introductory sentences that are less explicit in saying outright that Christmas is still a holiday only to commemorate the birth of Jesus (which, again, the article's second paragraph highlighted in blue above explains). It was clearly created as such by the Roman Church, which is explained in my altered second sentence, but even many Christians today (JWs, fundamentalists) disagree that it is a valid Christian holy day, and as is explained in the new intro, it has been banned numerous times within Christendom as "unbiblical, pagan". I think my newly-written first sentence is the best, objective phrasing to use as it explains that the holiday is celebrated by billions around the world (with a link to "Christmas worldwide"), and implies that many of these celebrants focus mostly if not completely on the secular aspects. I understand that this is a very controversial and touchy subject, but I'd like if a discussion could be fleshed out here about it.
Again, key difference between my opening sentence and the original: the original makes an explicit POV assumption of a certain one thing that Christmas Day is observed for without any appropriate context, and the new one does not make any such assumption, it simply relays the fact that it is celebrated by billions around the world. The entire first paragraph' is still dedicated to the celebration of the birth of Jesus, the explicit POV phrasing is merely altered. — FoxCE ( talk | contribs) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Christmas or Christmas Day is a Christian holiday that commemorates the birth of Jesus. The holiday was first sanctioned by the Roman state Church in the early-to-mid 4th century, and is today celebrated by billions of people around the world, including many non-Christians. The exact birthday of Jesus is not known, and the date for Christmas is thought to have been selected to coincide with either the date of the Roman winter solstice, one of various ancient winter festivals, or the day exactly nine months after Jesus’ traditional conception date. | ” |
The sweeping changes made to the entire lede (all of which is disputed) by one editor, removed the previous one which had been carefully worded by many editors and agreed upon (see archive talk). Any new changes should be agreed upon as opposed to one highly disputed POV. LondonER19 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Christmas means different things to Christians and non-Christians. For Christians, in every country, it means a celebration of the birth of Jesus. For non-Christians in countries where it is a public holiday, it has a meaning quite independent of Christian belief. (I suppose that for non-Christians in countries where Christianity is ignored (some Islamic countries, China ...) it has no meaning at all.) The two meanings can and should be indicated, and should be indicated right at the start. That is the reasoning behind my attempt at an NPOV revision of the lead. Esoglou ( talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of this article does not reflect what reliable sources say about the holiday. An textbook titled Religions of the World states:
Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:
Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.
I have corrected the introduction to reflect this. Thanks, Anupam Talk 07:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire article needs to be rewritten by a historian or scholar, not a christian. A Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus is ONLY ONE opinion of what Christmas is. The truth is that Christmas started as a Pagan ritual of lawlessness, that doesn't sound very Christian to me. This entire article, if it's to exist, needs to be fair and balanced and represent everything about Christmas, like it's origins and meaning to different people of different religions. Starting this article with that introduction sets the tone for nothing but lies and one sided opinions. It's also curious that the references are all from the Bible and Christian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyerhaus ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
After the recent slew of revisions, the lede as it stands now looks like it was written as a compromise statement of a divided committee, which it in fact is. I especially dislike the first sentence ("Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25[2][3][4] by billions of people around the world."), because it says essentially nothing of importance that isn't already common knowledge. The trouble we seem to be having is that we're using the word Christmas to refer to two distinct things but related things (the Christian holy day and the secular holiday), and we're trying to define it as if it's a single thing. I don't have a good suggestion for how to do it (some of you folks apparently have a lot more spare time to work on this than I do), but it needs work. It's worse now than it was before all the revisions. Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that Esoglou has changed the Infobox picture from the image of a nativity scene with surrounding Christmas trees to one depicting merely the nativity. I don't have any problem with this personally, but browsing through the talk archives, I am seeing that there seems to have been a consensus in place that the image reflect both a religious and secular element of Christmas (see here, here and here for most recent discussion). Prior to the nativity/tree image there was a collage depicting several different elements, but it was deemed to be too "ugly" or "contrived" by users. I would agree, I am not in favor of a collage image. What are others' thoughts on what the Infobox image should depict? Are there any alternative images in the Wikimedia collection that depict both a religious and secular aspect? — FoxCE ( talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25 by billions of people around the world". If i wrote that in a school essay i'd get a D- if lucky. No dictionary or encyclopedia would give such a vague definition where any reference to Christian observance, by over 2 billion adherents, has been airbrushed out. First searches; #1. A Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus #2. the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus #3. a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ, #4. Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus. The rest of the lede is fine, but the opening sentence, as it currently stands, is not. Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd ( talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
“ | "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world". | ” |
I concur with User:Jordanson72 User:Esoglou in editing the sentence. This is because reliable sources reflect the suggested change, rather than the current sentence:
A textbook titled Religions of the World states:
Christmas, which marks the birth of Jesus, is celebrated in Western Christianity on December 25 and in January by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's opening sentence states:
Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.
I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam Talk 06:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth adding the opinion of the current Pope and taking it into account when defining Christmas:
The need to "discover ... the child" clearly implies that (according to the Pope at least) Christmas currently isn't about "the child" in the first place. AlexFekken ( talk) 08:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 3rd sentence, "much of the world's nations" should be changed to "many of the world's nations." (proper grammar)
146.57.87.182 (
talk)
01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a space between "Christmas" and "time" in the word "Christmastime" in the first sentence of the Stamps section. Although it is a viable word, it is distracting to users I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarpopo ( talk • contribs)
I just want to thank the Wikipedia community for putting together such a bad article and then protecting it. I'm a university professor and I'm always looking for good examples of why Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source and why students should never cite Wikipedia in a university paper. This particular page is so bad that I have a new example for teaching. Thank you! And happy holiday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.228.7 ( talk • contribs)
The most common meaning of "Yule" in modern times is simply Christmas. Here is Merriam-Webster: "YULE : the feast of the nativity of Jesus Christ : Christmas." In the Scandinavian languages, Jul/Yule is the usual word for Christmas. Before 1038, December 25 was called "Midwinter" in England. It became "Christmas" when the Yule celebration was assigned to that date. Kauffner ( talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't dare to change or write in this topic yet. But can anyone confirm that the word Yule is an old synonym in the English language to the word of Christmas? (Even if it's very seldom used nowdays.) That would be a nice piece of information under the topic Etymology. Secondly, does the word Yuletie exist in the English language? Eger to know! And if anyone familiar to this issue would make a change or statement in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desnobo ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Should be removed from 'See Also'.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some significant differences in the way Christmas/Nativity is observed in Eastern Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. That area really ought to be expanded, and an icon added to show some of the difference. You can see a nativity icon at this page http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nativity_icon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a paragraph in the Decorations section attempting to quote Jewish tradition -- "Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the foliage of beautiful trees, palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. " (Leviticus 23:40). Unfortunately, this entire chapter of Leviticus refers to Sukkot, an entirely different Jewish holiday which takes place at a completely different time of the year (a few days after Yom Kippur). Quoting this in reference to anything to do with Christmas is not only incorrect, but offensive. I have already removed the offending paragraph; just explaining my actions here. -- Veled ( talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gospel of Matthew also describes a visit by several Magi, or astrologers, who bring gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the infant Jesus.
Please change "the infant Jesus" to "the young child Jesus" because Matthew does NOT say Jesus was an infant at this time. Matthew says "child" or "young child".
SOURCE: read Mathew 2:8 in King James or any other reliable translation.
Nx9999 ( talk) 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be underplaying the role of the Magi and overplaying the role of "Santa Claus" in the article. For example, in Spain, the "three kings" or Magi still bring gifts on the 6th of January, and, although there is some incorporation of "Papa Noel" (Santa Claus by another name) due to commercialization for economic reasons as mentioned in the article (I think that part is well written), the majority of the Spanish still celebrate in the traditional manner, and children do not receive gifts until the 6th of January. You might want to check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.149.77 ( talk) 09:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
it was my understanding that the real birth date for Jesus was likely to have been September. Can anyone confirm that? Perhaps we should reference in the article? 25 December was rather an attempt to align beliefs in the "conquering sun" with the developing religion of Christianity. The other problem with the article as it's stands is that it doesn't make clear that Christmas was not generally a feast celebrated by the earliest Christians but rather the first Christmas mass was not seen until the 3rd century. This is because early Christians would not have regarded it as a particularly important event. More important was Easter which sat at the heart of the developing Christian community ie the death and resurrection of Christ. The growth in popularity of the nativity then only really took off in the late middle ages with a growing interest in childhood and the childhood of Jesus in particular. Hence the introduction of nativity scenes. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please chance the last line of paragraph 2 to a more professional style. It currently says, "or of some ancient pagan winter festival."
It should be:
"or of an ancient pagan winter festival."
The code would thus read:
or of an ancient pagan winter festival. [2] [3]
Instead of:
or of some ancient pagan winter festival. [2] [3]
184.96.242.66 ( talk) 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article uses Jesus' as possessive, but it should be Jesus's:
Commemorating Jesus' birth
should be:
Commemorating Jesus's birth
because Jesus is not plural. I see a few other cases of this in the text. Bmomjian ( talk) 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Countries 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." Religion_in_South_Korea Over 29.2% of Koreans now are Christians by last count, so they are not in the minority, plus the meaning of Christmas is different in Japan than in the US, which this page doesn't make clear. Please rewrite that lead. -- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello User:FoxCE, thanks for all of the effort you've put into the article. I reversed your change because it was unsupported by the references. According to Selling God: American religion in the marketplace of culture (Oxford University Press):
When the Catholic Church in the fourth century singled out December 25 as the birth date of Christ, it tried to stamp out the saturnalia common to the solstice season.
Similarly, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia states:
Christian missionaries frequently sought to stamp out pagan practices by building churches on the sites of pagan shrines or by associated Christian holidays with pagan rituals (eg. linking -Christmas with the celebration of the winter solstice).
The Church established Christmas near the dates of these pagan festivals in order to compete with them, and eventually eliminate them, or "stamp them out." As such, this wording should be reflected in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro section covers a topic that is also discussed in a later section, "Date of celebration." There is info at each location not contained in the other. Should they be merged? Should that paragraph in the intro be pared down to a 1-sentence summary, with complete discussion later? Ruckabumpkus ( talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the section "Using the Julian calendar", in the third sentence:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Bulgaria should be added to the list, like:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Because in Orthodox Bulgaria Christmas is also celebrated on 25th December. this source can be used: http://goeasteurope.about.com/od/bulgariatravel/a/bulgariachristmastraditions.htm
95.87.196.100 ( talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark (There are more) celebrate Chrismas on december 24th, or Christmas Eve and get their presents then rather than on Christmas Morning. I would like if you could add that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.85.113 ( talk) 11:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Really? I can't find it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.247.227 ( talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
bib-arch.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).