![]() | 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. |
A Wall Street Journal opinion article doesn't compare to a reference work or to scholarly literature as a source. I read the original source and it has various problems. On top of that, it's being misrepresented here. No source that I am aware of says that the Epiphany was split from Christmas, by Pope Julius or by anyone else. The WSJ article doesn't mention Docetists. In fact, I assume it is referring to Arians, since Arian vs Catholic was the hot controversy of the fourth century. An Arian might or might not be a Docetist. Pandas and people ( talk) 04:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has been around since 2001. I think some restructuring is in order. There are repetitions. Material is presented out of sequence.
Specifically, IMO, the reason for the new holiday should be presented first (heresy). Then the selection of December 25 - start with Quarto-decimals, leading (eventually) to the change by Pope Julius. Different dates for the Orthodox. A bit confusing because the Orthodox dates are sometimes Julian and slide into the Epiphany over the millennia!. I don't have suggestions after that point, but that bit of editing will take some work. I don't have the time right now. Leave me a note and I will eventually look back here. Thanks.
I don't do edit wars. If this is an "edit war" page, forget it! Student7 ( talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article date formats be in YMD only, MDY only, DMY only, or reverted back to December 2015 when there was both ?
--
Hi, Long story short back in December
Kind Tennis Fan had converted the entire article to MDY
[2] - There was no consensus for this nor was there any discussion, So having seen Walter Görlitz convert all dates to MDY I then had converted everything to YMD, Since then there's been a disagreement/edit war over this so I wanted to get a wider discussion as to what should be used or done,
I had attempted to revert back to Dec 2015 and readd all of the edits however it would've took forever and was way too much so I had self-reverted and decided to start an RFC, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer for this. Personally, I vote for MDY. Grammarphile ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion between Dave & Walter
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section : References Reference No: 238 "Christmas controversy article – Muslim Canadian Congress.[dead link]" it is a Dead Link Replace this Reference with < spam link removed> i found it on the web and it is relevant to the christmas page and i think people want to know about facts of christmas
I hope you will replace this dead reference with i suggested above for more user engagement.
Thank you Zayn Mk ( talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are some of the categories that probably need to be added to Christmas if Category:Public holidays in Denmark is appropriate– at Lists of public holidays by country
A ► Public holidays in Albania (1 P) ► Public holidays in Andorra (2 P) ► Public holidays in Argentina (1 C, 12 P) ► Public holidays in Armenia (2 P) ► Public holidays in Australia (2 C, 23 P) B ► Public holidays in Barbados (1 C, 4 P) ► Holidays in Belarus (2 P) ► Public holidays in Belgium (7 P) ► Public holidays in Belize (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Bolivia (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Botswana (4 P) ► Public holidays in Brazil (1 C, 5 P) C ► Public holidays in Canada (5 C, 26 P) ► Public holidays in Colombia (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Costa Rica (2 P) ► Public holidays in Croatia (10 P) ► Public holidays in Cyprus (1 C, 1 P) D ► Public holidays in Denmark (11 P) ► Public holidays in the Dominican Republic (1 C, 2 P) E ► Public holidays in El Salvador (1 C, 3 P) ► Public holidays in Estonia (3 P) F ► Public holidays in Fiji (9 P) ► Public holidays in Finland (5 P) G ► Public holidays in Georgia (country) (1 C, 3 P) ► Public holidays in Germany (1 C, 9 P) ► Public holidays in Grenada (1 C, 5 P) ► Public holidays in Guatemala (1 P) H ► Public holidays in Haiti (1 C) ► Public holidays in Honduras (3 P) ► Public holidays in Hungary (4 P) I ► Public holidays in Iceland (4 P)
► Public holidays in the Republic of Ireland (1 C, 10 P) ► Public holidays in Italy (6 P) L ► Public holidays in Latvia (13 P) ► Public holidays in Lithuania (3 P) M ► Public holidays in the Republic of Macedonia (3 P) ► Public holidays in Malta (6 P) ► Public holidays in the Marshall Islands (2 P) ► Public holidays in Mauritius (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Mexico (3 C, 9 P) ► Public holidays in the Federated States of Micronesia (2 P) ► Public holidays in Moldova (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in Monaco (2 P) N ► Public holidays in New Zealand (15 P) ► Public holidays in Nicaragua (1 P)
► Public holidays in Norway (9 P) P ► Public holidays in Paraguay (2 P) ► Public holidays in Peru (1 C, 5 P) ► Public holidays in the Philippines (2 C, 15 P) ► Public holidays in Poland (8 P) R ► Public holidays in Rhodesia (1 P) ► Public holidays in Russia (12 P) S ► Public holidays in Saint Kitts and Nevis (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Saint Lucia (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Serbia (3 P) ► Public holidays in Slovenia (5 P) ► Public holidays in South Africa (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in the Soviet Union (11 P) ► Public holidays in Spain (14 P) ► Public holidays in Sweden (7 P) ► Public holidays in Switzerland (6 P) T ► Public holidays in Taiwan (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in Transnistria (1 P) ► Public holidays in Trinidad and Tobago (1 C, 5 P) U ► Public holidays in Ukraine (1 C, 13 P) ► Public holidays in the United Kingdom (4 C, 31 P) ► Public holidays in the United States (12 C, 76 P) ► Public holidays in Uruguay (2 P) V ► Public holidays in Venezuela (2 P)
Editor2020 ( talk) 00:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at how categories are handled in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments. It might require ensuring the categories form a tree but it ought to satisfy both of you. Whilst I'm on the subject of categories: as well as the contentious "Public holidays in Denmark", there is also "Federal holidays in the United States". Reagrds, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article Sol Invictus contained a long discussion of various theories for the choice of December 25 date for Christmas, which I condensed to those parts directly related with the topic of that article. I had considered merging it here, but decided not to because I find the text too wordy for my level of interest. However, the text contained many references, and is, if only for that reason, recommended reading for editors of this article. See Last version before removal, my edit. — Sebastian 06:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed over the last year or so that the intro has expanded exponentially, and it's bordering on the point of being too long to read comfortably, as well as containing too much irrelevant information that can be covered in the body. The lede is supposed to be a concise, readable summary of the article's contents, or at least its subject overall, and I think we've lost the plot on that front in regard to the lede at this point. Anyone else agree? I wanted to test the waters here a bit before considering delving into the trimming process. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"rest of the" is quite an inappropriate replacement phrase for "other" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear as to what is the difficulty encountered. Would you be a bit more forthcoming about your inability to understand? Is it not in the appropriate format--this for that? 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 05:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You really should know that in order to make certain that you are addressing the appropriate part of the article you should do a string search so that there is absolutely no possibility of mishap. There is only one application and that is what needs to be changed. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What better than to let the words speak for themselves! It is not my responsibility that the originator of the work did not adequately express what was needed for longevity. Maybe the WP hierarchy should seriously reconsider it s article locking usage! 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are speaking on behalf of WP then its your problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me through another one in your face; as has been said many time =s before in contentious discussions--WP is not a place for innovation! I work with what o got and this one does not register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Know what this article is missing. At the top it should have a countdown clock showing how many shopping days are left before Christmas. It is easy to do with [3]. Currently at the time of writing there are only 72 hour 10 hours and a few minutes left. Consisting of 10 Mondays, 10 Tuesdays,10 Wednesdays, 10 Thursdays,10 Fridays, 11 Saturdays,11 Sundays, 11 Weekends . All of this to be crammed in to the remaining 6,260,000 Seconds.... Oh, Have to break off here. My psychiatric nurse is indicating that it it is time for my next dose of medication – but think about it! Christmas comes but once a year – every year. So why not a clock? Also one for the Galactic year. Oh she's getting heavy now and unrolling the straight-jacket so I have to go. Bye. Aspro ( talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
MOS:TIME and MOS:DATED is guidance that one should not use it for say... Died 138 years , 14 days and 20 hours ago. These two Wikipedia Manuals say nothing about including temporal context – or do you say otherwise and can point to it? Aspro ( talk) 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph of section "20th century" and the first one of "Decorations" are inconsistent:
I started this article on a key topic. Please help expand it before the DYK period for this year's XMAS. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The External Link to "curlie.org" is a nonexistent or broken reference. Mariasala2 ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
in the first line it says celebrated by "billions" - this is clearly not the case. how about 1 or 2 billion? But not BILLIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.125.11 ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe a translation should be given for "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeæ". I saw one after being told where to look on the Reference Desk, but it wasn't sourced.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In the decorations section it is said that red amaryllis is a plant associated with Christmas. This is incorrect. The flowers commonly sold packaged as 'amaryllis' are actually of the genus hippeastrum, and this is widely known among gardeners. I suggest the link direct the user to the page for hippeastrum instead, though it is probably fair to leave the link text as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.102.224 ( talk) 19:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph is mentioned that the Christmas is the commemoration of Jesus's birthday. It is a celebration rather, because the notion of 'commemorating' is mainly or generally being used in relation to someone's death rather that birth, so I think that this should be reviewed. Thank you. 195.195.80.210 ( talk) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems we had agreement last year from all editors, save one, to stick to one date format. That editor and another seem to be appealing to WP:DATERET. The article was most certainly in the format of "December 25" for the longest time. It wasn't until the article started getting some references and care that it started to move to "25 December" format. I don't have any cards in the game other than wanting to avoid edit wars over the date format. Do we have consensus for one format over another? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is not mentioned the 24th December, when the pope is celebration Christmas? RafSch ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I support the new image recently removed as it is similar to Easter’s image. IWI ( chat) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, it should be deleted, but it is a harmful nomination nevertheless. IWI ( chat) 22:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
See "Christmas in Lebanon: ‘Jesus Isn’t Only for the Christians’". [4] Also this. And I do know about the prohibitions, but they aren't the whole story.
And in India it's a big deal. [5]
Doug Weller talk 19:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe the one added in this edit works, and actually depicts Christmas in an image better than the one nom'd for deletion on commons. Thoughts? Vermont ( talk) 22:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
what do you guys think? 141.126.208.123 ( talk) 19:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers to whoever decided to fully unprotect this article on Boxing Day, causing mass vandalism. IWI ( chat) 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"In the UK, Christmas Day became a Bank Holiday in 1834, Boxing Day was added in 1871."
This is wrong. Christmas Day is a Bank Holiday in Scotland, but it is not and has never been in England and Wales. It is difficult to write with precision about UK Bank Holidays because it needs to be made clear whether the B/H is held _somewhere_ in the UK or everywhere in the UK.
It is true that Christmas Day is often referred to in England as a Bank Holiday, even by officialdom, but it is not in any legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 ( talk) 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to cut down on excessive detail so that the article can focus on the main story. How do I decide which story is the main one? I'm following Susan Roll's Toward the Origins of Christmas (1995). Roll is the author of the article on Christmas in New Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, I have deleted edits that support or oppose the claim that December 25 is the actual birthdate of Jesus. This article is a more suitable place for such edits. FineStructure137 ( talk) 05:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding back Some of the customs associated with Christmas, including the Christmas tree, are tied to the celebration of the winter solstice and evolved from pagan traditions.(December 25, 2018). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-unexpected-pagan-origins-of-popular-christmas-traditions/ The unexpected origins of popular Christmas traditions. CBS News. Retrieved: November 18, 2019.] is problematic. First, there's a better section immediately below ("introduction of feast" for pagan roots, "19th century" for the tree and multiple sections for solstice) and the sources are far more reliable than a special interest story from CBS news interviewing one historian. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Rolling Phantom ( talk · contribs) Has been edit warring recently to make the "pagan" origins of Christmas to be more prominent in the lede. RP apparently wants it to be the first sentence. There are no questions that the date selection is not recorded in Christian scripture or with the early Church fathers and there are questions about it so I'm not sure "pagan" is the right word for it, it was, at the very least, adopted from Roman practice. Also, I'm not sure the history should be in the first sentence. I would say a bit more prominence in the fourth paragraph would be appropriate. Comments? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
What sources? The bible, which doesnt mention it at all? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How about "Christmas is an annual winter festival of ancient origin, in modern times commemorating the birth of Jesus" ? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I object to that the festival called "christmas" as of today is christian in origin. If christians had their way, there wouldnt be any festival at all. Since they couldnt have their way, the priests made up that Jebus coincidentally was born around the same time and snuck that into the picture. The real christmas takes place in church on christmas eve. The celebration that takes place all other places is all but christian, other than in the name. Some people even drink beer. Special "christmas" brew even. Rolling Phantom ( talk) 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The article here dosen't mention in the introduction that christmas may also be celebrated annualy on the 24'th December instead of 25'th, in at least Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keplaris ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to change it myself because it will inevitably start an edit war, but I feel a picture of a Christmas Tree would be a better candidate for the main photo. It is a more universal representation of Christmas and better represents the holiday, including its secular aspects. The current nativity scene is somewhat irrelevant from non-Christian and Atheist perspectives. The Christmas Tree however is universal. David G ( talk) 05:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to decide whether noting part of the reason for setting December 25, 1BC as the traditional day of Jesus’s birth is because that makes January 1, 1AD (i.e. the first day of the AD era) the day that Jesus would have been circumcised and thus, by Jewish tradition, the day he would be named and (at least unofficially) be considered to have become part of the Jewish community. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Times of Israel was where I originally read about it, which, though I would have to do more digging to confirm, appeared to be a RS to me. It had links to several churches/denominations whose sites explicitly stated this as fact. So, assuming that there is an RS: does it belong and, if so, where? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The Christingle is associated with Advent, before Christmastide, and the practice of lighting Christingles in church services is discussed in the relevant Advent article. I have removed a mention of Christingles from the lead of this article, as the practice was not outlined anywhere else in the article and the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarise the main body. -- Hazhk ( talk) 13:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the "and Brian Cohan" it has been added by a troll sadly. 81.242.71.53 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A lot if the supposed Pagan Origins facts are not from credible sources. nor are they accurate,. I tried fixing it but apparently false claims are preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKWills ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider changing Oxford University to University of Oxford when directly referring to the institution - as this is the correct name 195.213.86.231 ( talk) 16:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In The Start Of The Page It Should Be Jesus Christ And Not Jesus Christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSOFOreverTYU ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph in this section contains the statement: "the custom of kissing someone of the opposite sex when under a mistletoe." Is "opposite sex" really necessary? Can the sentence be rewritten as "the custom of kissing someone when under a mistletoe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDF0:6090:38A7:D331:E7E9:D59F ( talk) 05:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Little thing — the intro section claims that Christians believe God became incarnate in Jesus in order to "atone" for humanity's sins. While many Christians believe this, many do not, and it certainly does not apply to all Christians. (The wikipedia page on salvation actually details the different views different Christian denominations have on this issue.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8301:FD40:50C3:99C0:88F4:FAFC ( talk) 07:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I beleive The Unsigned Opener is Mistaken.
The Op says this, regarding the Page on Salvation "The wikipedia page on salvation actually details the different views different Christian denominations have on this issue"
The Article on Salvation does not mention anything that Contradicts the statment that Christians beleive Jesus became Incarnate to Atone for Humanitys Sins. I also wnder why Atone is in "". I suspect the Answer but will say nothing.
I Will however offer Speculation as to Why this Conclusion was reached. I beleive there is a Misunderstanding regarding the Section "Theories of Atonement" and what this actually entails. The Segment is likely presumed to say some Christians beleive God became Incarnate to Atone for Humanity's Sins, whilst others disagree, vieiing Atonement as acheived in some other way, but if One were to actually Read the various Theories on Atonement, none say Atonement as accomplished in some other way besides Jesus's Sacrifice, and None deny that God became incarnate in the Person of Jesus speficially to Atone for the Sins of Humanity, the Theories were on How this was acheived By Jesus and his Sacrifice on The Cross. Such as Substitutionary Atonement VS Ransom Theory VS Christus Victorus Theory VS Moral Example Theory. All of them are different views on The Atonement, but none deny God became Incarnate in the Person of Jesus to Atone for Sins.
The mere presence of The Various Atonement Theories are being misunderstood as alternatives to God becoming Incarnate in Jesus to Atone for the Sins of Humanity, when they are in Reality Theories about How God in the person of Jesus acheived that Atonement, the Mechanism for how it worked, if You Will.
Also, the Article itself does have an error in it, in that it classifies the Churches Of Christ as Protestant. This is not accurate, as they are properly a Restorationist Church. Restorationism, while emergent from Protestntism, is distinct from it in the denial of Salvation By Faith Alone.
Who gave Wikipedia the authority to determine the date of Christmas? Here is American Heritage Dictionary: "Christmas, December 25, the day on which this feast is observed as a public holiday in many countries." Pick whatever dictionary, encyclopedia, or reference work you like. They all say something similar to this. 99to99 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
That's rich coming from an editor who has been claiming to know the correct nature and no one else does. In short, it's time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a full list of items for Christmas dinner:
-- Nate-Dawg921 ( talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Economy" section, I would like to add a citation to the follow sentence, which currently lacks a citation: "Film studios release many high-budget movies during the holiday season, including Christmas films, fantasy movies or high-tone dramas with high production values to hopes of maximizing the chance of nominations for the Academy Awards." The citation would be as follows: Zauzmer, Ben (January 31, 2020).
"Oscar Seasons: The Intersection of Data and the Academy Awards". Harvard Data Science Review. 2 (1).
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.6230ce9f. Retrieved 15 November 2021. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in
(
help)
Witchylib23 (
talk)
19:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
|doi=
Being than most of the Apostolic churches are mentioned due to their own local traditions, we are missing the Christmas date and reasoning for:
-- Coquidragon ( talk) 09:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to write more details about Christmas and more religious things 24.115.212.117 ( talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In Czech Republic and Slovakia, Xmas is actually the 24th of December 86.49.156.56 ( talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hey can i request to be a part of editing wikipedia, thank you! Aaliyahisnothere ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: Judging by the usage of 'infobox holiday' and the short description shouldn't the lead section state that Christmas is a holiday too? An annual festival observed by many nations/cultures would be a holiday anyway, just like Thanksgiving and Halloween. Waddles 🎄 ❄️️ 18:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The scripture that supports "sixth month" is Luke 1:26 which reads, Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ (in now the month sixth) commonly translated, "Now the sixth month", but this follows a passage that discusses Elizabeth's conception and that she "hid herself [for] five months". (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A24-26&version=KJV;SBLGNT) So the it's more likely that the author is saying "in Elizabeth's sixth month" rather than "in the sixth month of the year". If it were the latter, he is writing in Greek to a supposedly Greek audience, so they would assume a Greco-Roman calendar, not the Hebrew one. At best, this is making assumptions back into the text rather than the other way around. A quote from The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape would be useful here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The table of dates when different people celebrate Christmas says that the Amish and Anabaptists do it on 25 December by the Julian calendar and then gives the Gregorian date as 6 January. This is wrong, since the Gregorian date is 7 January (which is the date given in the rest of the table for people observing the Julian calendar). The sources cited in this article and other articles all confirm that 6 January is indeed the date on which the Amish celebrate Christmas though. This means there must be some other explanation. It's not just about the different calendars. (Maybe it's for the same reason as the Armenians, but the sources don't say that.) Richard75 ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do we celebrate Christmas 27.63.182.75 ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
1. They are part of the same holiday season, 2. "Merry christ as and a happy new year" is a common greeting, 3. Many countries' new year celebrations use christmas themes. Martianmister ( talk) 21:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.fethiyetimes.com/magazine/20087-turkish-christmas-celebrating-noel-new-years-eve.html https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/turkey/new-year-eve https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/30/how-soviets-came-to-celebrate-new-years-like-christmas-and-why-russians-still-do/ https://time.com/5922931/santa-claus-soviet-history/ http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/season-s-greetings-eastern-europe Martianmister ( talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be solely focused on the Christian side of Christmas, hardly discussing the historical origins being a Roman and pagan holiday but rather connecting that to the bible. This shows an overwhelming amount of religious bias that should be investigated. Christmas originally was pagan and Roman, was appropriated by the Christians, then has been removed from the religion and turned into a secular celebration of giving and community 101.188.130.15 ( talk) 03:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section on Controversies contains the statement that “Christmas Day did not become a public holiday in Scotland until 1958.” The date makes no sense and contradicts the 1871 date given in the Wikipedia link provided in the above quoted line. The date should be changed to be consistent. 23.242.167.156 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The sections titled "Calculation Hypothesis" and "Solstice Date Hypothesis" contain no counterarguments and directly quote one historian's subjective assessment that it is "a thoroughly viable hypothesis." In contrast, the section titled "History of Religions Hypothesis" does contain counterarguments, and in fact counterarguments make up the majority of the text in this section, some of which is repeated text from the previous sections. It is obvious which hypothesis the writers of the article support, therefore the article is biased. This complaint has already been made under the topic "religious exclusivity," but instead of responding to that criticism, an editor decided that scolding an anonymous member of the public for not providing specific examples was more appropriate than considering whether there was a problem with the article. I'm writing to show that the public is more than capable of giving a specific description of whats wrong with this article. The question is whether christian wikipedia editors are actually capable of recognizing their own bias. 183.108.104.61 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The two hypotheses presented after the Calculation Hypothesis section appear clearly framed as counter-arguments themselves to Calculation. Counter-arguments to counter-arguments are appropriate and scholarly. Furthermore I am aware of no compelling reason why Christians would favor one hypothesis over another. Finally, if you see a problem with this section, you are welcome to do the research yourself to improve it. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 00:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[copyvio redacted] [link redacted] Shurahbeelhamid ( talk) 16:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Replace History title with Origin of Christmas and add the section below under the new title" The true origins of Christmas stem from both the pagan and Roman cultures. The Romans actually celebrated two holidays in the month of December. The first was Saturnalia, which was a two-week festival honoring their god of agriculture Saturn. On December 25th, they celebrated the birth of Mithra, their sun god. Also in December, in which the darkest day of the year falls, the pagan cultures lit bonfires and candles to keep the darkness at bay. The Romans also incorporated this tradition into their own celebrations. As Christianity spread across Europe, the Christian clergy were not able to curb the pagan customs and celebrations. Since no one knew Jesus’s date of birth, they adapted the pagan ritual into a celebration of his birthday. [1] [2] ERobayoCa ( talk) 01:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was a Jewish tradition of celebrating the conception of a prophet on the date of his death. The Church accepted that Jesus died on March 25th (though it is not celebrated this way since the feast is tied instead to the variable date of Easter); therefore, the Church celebrates the conception of Christ on March 25th, the Annunciation. Nine months after, Christ is born, leading to the date of Christmas on December 25th. St. Hippolytus of Rome records that Christians celebrated Christmas on December 25th: "For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th" (Commentary on Daniel [4.23.3; written ca. AD 202-211]). GoatCheese1 ( talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
In the paragraph just above the Etymology section,
Christkind needs to have "the" in front of it.
—DIV
Support
good-faith
IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping
range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse
collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as
semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(
1.145.86.40 (
talk)
23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC))
on line 13, article reads "It was a traditional Jewish belief that great men were born and died on the same day, so lived a whole number of years, without fractions: Jesus was therefore considered to have been conceived and died on March 25," the word "born" here is an obvious error. should be "conceived" 73.25.220.221 ( talk) 21:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A Wall Street Journal opinion article doesn't compare to a reference work or to scholarly literature as a source. I read the original source and it has various problems. On top of that, it's being misrepresented here. No source that I am aware of says that the Epiphany was split from Christmas, by Pope Julius or by anyone else. The WSJ article doesn't mention Docetists. In fact, I assume it is referring to Arians, since Arian vs Catholic was the hot controversy of the fourth century. An Arian might or might not be a Docetist. Pandas and people ( talk) 04:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has been around since 2001. I think some restructuring is in order. There are repetitions. Material is presented out of sequence.
Specifically, IMO, the reason for the new holiday should be presented first (heresy). Then the selection of December 25 - start with Quarto-decimals, leading (eventually) to the change by Pope Julius. Different dates for the Orthodox. A bit confusing because the Orthodox dates are sometimes Julian and slide into the Epiphany over the millennia!. I don't have suggestions after that point, but that bit of editing will take some work. I don't have the time right now. Leave me a note and I will eventually look back here. Thanks.
I don't do edit wars. If this is an "edit war" page, forget it! Student7 ( talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article date formats be in YMD only, MDY only, DMY only, or reverted back to December 2015 when there was both ?
--
Hi, Long story short back in December
Kind Tennis Fan had converted the entire article to MDY
[2] - There was no consensus for this nor was there any discussion, So having seen Walter Görlitz convert all dates to MDY I then had converted everything to YMD, Since then there's been a disagreement/edit war over this so I wanted to get a wider discussion as to what should be used or done,
I had attempted to revert back to Dec 2015 and readd all of the edits however it would've took forever and was way too much so I had self-reverted and decided to start an RFC, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer for this. Personally, I vote for MDY. Grammarphile ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion between Dave & Walter
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section : References Reference No: 238 "Christmas controversy article – Muslim Canadian Congress.[dead link]" it is a Dead Link Replace this Reference with < spam link removed> i found it on the web and it is relevant to the christmas page and i think people want to know about facts of christmas
I hope you will replace this dead reference with i suggested above for more user engagement.
Thank you Zayn Mk ( talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are some of the categories that probably need to be added to Christmas if Category:Public holidays in Denmark is appropriate– at Lists of public holidays by country
A ► Public holidays in Albania (1 P) ► Public holidays in Andorra (2 P) ► Public holidays in Argentina (1 C, 12 P) ► Public holidays in Armenia (2 P) ► Public holidays in Australia (2 C, 23 P) B ► Public holidays in Barbados (1 C, 4 P) ► Holidays in Belarus (2 P) ► Public holidays in Belgium (7 P) ► Public holidays in Belize (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Bolivia (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Botswana (4 P) ► Public holidays in Brazil (1 C, 5 P) C ► Public holidays in Canada (5 C, 26 P) ► Public holidays in Colombia (1 C, 2 P) ► Public holidays in Costa Rica (2 P) ► Public holidays in Croatia (10 P) ► Public holidays in Cyprus (1 C, 1 P) D ► Public holidays in Denmark (11 P) ► Public holidays in the Dominican Republic (1 C, 2 P) E ► Public holidays in El Salvador (1 C, 3 P) ► Public holidays in Estonia (3 P) F ► Public holidays in Fiji (9 P) ► Public holidays in Finland (5 P) G ► Public holidays in Georgia (country) (1 C, 3 P) ► Public holidays in Germany (1 C, 9 P) ► Public holidays in Grenada (1 C, 5 P) ► Public holidays in Guatemala (1 P) H ► Public holidays in Haiti (1 C) ► Public holidays in Honduras (3 P) ► Public holidays in Hungary (4 P) I ► Public holidays in Iceland (4 P)
► Public holidays in the Republic of Ireland (1 C, 10 P) ► Public holidays in Italy (6 P) L ► Public holidays in Latvia (13 P) ► Public holidays in Lithuania (3 P) M ► Public holidays in the Republic of Macedonia (3 P) ► Public holidays in Malta (6 P) ► Public holidays in the Marshall Islands (2 P) ► Public holidays in Mauritius (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Mexico (3 C, 9 P) ► Public holidays in the Federated States of Micronesia (2 P) ► Public holidays in Moldova (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in Monaco (2 P) N ► Public holidays in New Zealand (15 P) ► Public holidays in Nicaragua (1 P)
► Public holidays in Norway (9 P) P ► Public holidays in Paraguay (2 P) ► Public holidays in Peru (1 C, 5 P) ► Public holidays in the Philippines (2 C, 15 P) ► Public holidays in Poland (8 P) R ► Public holidays in Rhodesia (1 P) ► Public holidays in Russia (12 P) S ► Public holidays in Saint Kitts and Nevis (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Saint Lucia (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1 C, 1 P) ► Public holidays in Serbia (3 P) ► Public holidays in Slovenia (5 P) ► Public holidays in South Africa (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in the Soviet Union (11 P) ► Public holidays in Spain (14 P) ► Public holidays in Sweden (7 P) ► Public holidays in Switzerland (6 P) T ► Public holidays in Taiwan (1 C, 4 P) ► Public holidays in Transnistria (1 P) ► Public holidays in Trinidad and Tobago (1 C, 5 P) U ► Public holidays in Ukraine (1 C, 13 P) ► Public holidays in the United Kingdom (4 C, 31 P) ► Public holidays in the United States (12 C, 76 P) ► Public holidays in Uruguay (2 P) V ► Public holidays in Venezuela (2 P)
Editor2020 ( talk) 00:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at how categories are handled in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments. It might require ensuring the categories form a tree but it ought to satisfy both of you. Whilst I'm on the subject of categories: as well as the contentious "Public holidays in Denmark", there is also "Federal holidays in the United States". Reagrds, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article Sol Invictus contained a long discussion of various theories for the choice of December 25 date for Christmas, which I condensed to those parts directly related with the topic of that article. I had considered merging it here, but decided not to because I find the text too wordy for my level of interest. However, the text contained many references, and is, if only for that reason, recommended reading for editors of this article. See Last version before removal, my edit. — Sebastian 06:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed over the last year or so that the intro has expanded exponentially, and it's bordering on the point of being too long to read comfortably, as well as containing too much irrelevant information that can be covered in the body. The lede is supposed to be a concise, readable summary of the article's contents, or at least its subject overall, and I think we've lost the plot on that front in regard to the lede at this point. Anyone else agree? I wanted to test the waters here a bit before considering delving into the trimming process. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"rest of the" is quite an inappropriate replacement phrase for "other" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It is unclear as to what is the difficulty encountered. Would you be a bit more forthcoming about your inability to understand? Is it not in the appropriate format--this for that? 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 05:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You really should know that in order to make certain that you are addressing the appropriate part of the article you should do a string search so that there is absolutely no possibility of mishap. There is only one application and that is what needs to be changed. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What better than to let the words speak for themselves! It is not my responsibility that the originator of the work did not adequately express what was needed for longevity. Maybe the WP hierarchy should seriously reconsider it s article locking usage! 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are speaking on behalf of WP then its your problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me through another one in your face; as has been said many time =s before in contentious discussions--WP is not a place for innovation! I work with what o got and this one does not register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A ( talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Know what this article is missing. At the top it should have a countdown clock showing how many shopping days are left before Christmas. It is easy to do with [3]. Currently at the time of writing there are only 72 hour 10 hours and a few minutes left. Consisting of 10 Mondays, 10 Tuesdays,10 Wednesdays, 10 Thursdays,10 Fridays, 11 Saturdays,11 Sundays, 11 Weekends . All of this to be crammed in to the remaining 6,260,000 Seconds.... Oh, Have to break off here. My psychiatric nurse is indicating that it it is time for my next dose of medication – but think about it! Christmas comes but once a year – every year. So why not a clock? Also one for the Galactic year. Oh she's getting heavy now and unrolling the straight-jacket so I have to go. Bye. Aspro ( talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
MOS:TIME and MOS:DATED is guidance that one should not use it for say... Died 138 years , 14 days and 20 hours ago. These two Wikipedia Manuals say nothing about including temporal context – or do you say otherwise and can point to it? Aspro ( talk) 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph of section "20th century" and the first one of "Decorations" are inconsistent:
I started this article on a key topic. Please help expand it before the DYK period for this year's XMAS. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The External Link to "curlie.org" is a nonexistent or broken reference. Mariasala2 ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
in the first line it says celebrated by "billions" - this is clearly not the case. how about 1 or 2 billion? But not BILLIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.125.11 ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe a translation should be given for "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeæ". I saw one after being told where to look on the Reference Desk, but it wasn't sourced.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In the decorations section it is said that red amaryllis is a plant associated with Christmas. This is incorrect. The flowers commonly sold packaged as 'amaryllis' are actually of the genus hippeastrum, and this is widely known among gardeners. I suggest the link direct the user to the page for hippeastrum instead, though it is probably fair to leave the link text as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.102.224 ( talk) 19:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph is mentioned that the Christmas is the commemoration of Jesus's birthday. It is a celebration rather, because the notion of 'commemorating' is mainly or generally being used in relation to someone's death rather that birth, so I think that this should be reviewed. Thank you. 195.195.80.210 ( talk) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems we had agreement last year from all editors, save one, to stick to one date format. That editor and another seem to be appealing to WP:DATERET. The article was most certainly in the format of "December 25" for the longest time. It wasn't until the article started getting some references and care that it started to move to "25 December" format. I don't have any cards in the game other than wanting to avoid edit wars over the date format. Do we have consensus for one format over another? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is not mentioned the 24th December, when the pope is celebration Christmas? RafSch ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I support the new image recently removed as it is similar to Easter’s image. IWI ( chat) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, it should be deleted, but it is a harmful nomination nevertheless. IWI ( chat) 22:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
See "Christmas in Lebanon: ‘Jesus Isn’t Only for the Christians’". [4] Also this. And I do know about the prohibitions, but they aren't the whole story.
And in India it's a big deal. [5]
Doug Weller talk 19:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe the one added in this edit works, and actually depicts Christmas in an image better than the one nom'd for deletion on commons. Thoughts? Vermont ( talk) 22:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
what do you guys think? 141.126.208.123 ( talk) 19:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers to whoever decided to fully unprotect this article on Boxing Day, causing mass vandalism. IWI ( chat) 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"In the UK, Christmas Day became a Bank Holiday in 1834, Boxing Day was added in 1871."
This is wrong. Christmas Day is a Bank Holiday in Scotland, but it is not and has never been in England and Wales. It is difficult to write with precision about UK Bank Holidays because it needs to be made clear whether the B/H is held _somewhere_ in the UK or everywhere in the UK.
It is true that Christmas Day is often referred to in England as a Bank Holiday, even by officialdom, but it is not in any legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 ( talk) 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've been trying to cut down on excessive detail so that the article can focus on the main story. How do I decide which story is the main one? I'm following Susan Roll's Toward the Origins of Christmas (1995). Roll is the author of the article on Christmas in New Catholic Encyclopedia. For example, I have deleted edits that support or oppose the claim that December 25 is the actual birthdate of Jesus. This article is a more suitable place for such edits. FineStructure137 ( talk) 05:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding back Some of the customs associated with Christmas, including the Christmas tree, are tied to the celebration of the winter solstice and evolved from pagan traditions.(December 25, 2018). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-unexpected-pagan-origins-of-popular-christmas-traditions/ The unexpected origins of popular Christmas traditions. CBS News. Retrieved: November 18, 2019.] is problematic. First, there's a better section immediately below ("introduction of feast" for pagan roots, "19th century" for the tree and multiple sections for solstice) and the sources are far more reliable than a special interest story from CBS news interviewing one historian. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Rolling Phantom ( talk · contribs) Has been edit warring recently to make the "pagan" origins of Christmas to be more prominent in the lede. RP apparently wants it to be the first sentence. There are no questions that the date selection is not recorded in Christian scripture or with the early Church fathers and there are questions about it so I'm not sure "pagan" is the right word for it, it was, at the very least, adopted from Roman practice. Also, I'm not sure the history should be in the first sentence. I would say a bit more prominence in the fourth paragraph would be appropriate. Comments? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
What sources? The bible, which doesnt mention it at all? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How about "Christmas is an annual winter festival of ancient origin, in modern times commemorating the birth of Jesus" ? Rolling Phantom ( talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I object to that the festival called "christmas" as of today is christian in origin. If christians had their way, there wouldnt be any festival at all. Since they couldnt have their way, the priests made up that Jebus coincidentally was born around the same time and snuck that into the picture. The real christmas takes place in church on christmas eve. The celebration that takes place all other places is all but christian, other than in the name. Some people even drink beer. Special "christmas" brew even. Rolling Phantom ( talk) 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The article here dosen't mention in the introduction that christmas may also be celebrated annualy on the 24'th December instead of 25'th, in at least Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keplaris ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to change it myself because it will inevitably start an edit war, but I feel a picture of a Christmas Tree would be a better candidate for the main photo. It is a more universal representation of Christmas and better represents the holiday, including its secular aspects. The current nativity scene is somewhat irrelevant from non-Christian and Atheist perspectives. The Christmas Tree however is universal. David G ( talk) 05:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to decide whether noting part of the reason for setting December 25, 1BC as the traditional day of Jesus’s birth is because that makes January 1, 1AD (i.e. the first day of the AD era) the day that Jesus would have been circumcised and thus, by Jewish tradition, the day he would be named and (at least unofficially) be considered to have become part of the Jewish community. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Times of Israel was where I originally read about it, which, though I would have to do more digging to confirm, appeared to be a RS to me. It had links to several churches/denominations whose sites explicitly stated this as fact. So, assuming that there is an RS: does it belong and, if so, where? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The Christingle is associated with Advent, before Christmastide, and the practice of lighting Christingles in church services is discussed in the relevant Advent article. I have removed a mention of Christingles from the lead of this article, as the practice was not outlined anywhere else in the article and the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarise the main body. -- Hazhk ( talk) 13:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the "and Brian Cohan" it has been added by a troll sadly. 81.242.71.53 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A lot if the supposed Pagan Origins facts are not from credible sources. nor are they accurate,. I tried fixing it but apparently false claims are preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKWills ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider changing Oxford University to University of Oxford when directly referring to the institution - as this is the correct name 195.213.86.231 ( talk) 16:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
In The Start Of The Page It Should Be Jesus Christ And Not Jesus Christ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSOFOreverTYU ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph in this section contains the statement: "the custom of kissing someone of the opposite sex when under a mistletoe." Is "opposite sex" really necessary? Can the sentence be rewritten as "the custom of kissing someone when under a mistletoe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDF0:6090:38A7:D331:E7E9:D59F ( talk) 05:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Little thing — the intro section claims that Christians believe God became incarnate in Jesus in order to "atone" for humanity's sins. While many Christians believe this, many do not, and it certainly does not apply to all Christians. (The wikipedia page on salvation actually details the different views different Christian denominations have on this issue.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8301:FD40:50C3:99C0:88F4:FAFC ( talk) 07:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I beleive The Unsigned Opener is Mistaken.
The Op says this, regarding the Page on Salvation "The wikipedia page on salvation actually details the different views different Christian denominations have on this issue"
The Article on Salvation does not mention anything that Contradicts the statment that Christians beleive Jesus became Incarnate to Atone for Humanitys Sins. I also wnder why Atone is in "". I suspect the Answer but will say nothing.
I Will however offer Speculation as to Why this Conclusion was reached. I beleive there is a Misunderstanding regarding the Section "Theories of Atonement" and what this actually entails. The Segment is likely presumed to say some Christians beleive God became Incarnate to Atone for Humanity's Sins, whilst others disagree, vieiing Atonement as acheived in some other way, but if One were to actually Read the various Theories on Atonement, none say Atonement as accomplished in some other way besides Jesus's Sacrifice, and None deny that God became incarnate in the Person of Jesus speficially to Atone for the Sins of Humanity, the Theories were on How this was acheived By Jesus and his Sacrifice on The Cross. Such as Substitutionary Atonement VS Ransom Theory VS Christus Victorus Theory VS Moral Example Theory. All of them are different views on The Atonement, but none deny God became Incarnate in the Person of Jesus to Atone for Sins.
The mere presence of The Various Atonement Theories are being misunderstood as alternatives to God becoming Incarnate in Jesus to Atone for the Sins of Humanity, when they are in Reality Theories about How God in the person of Jesus acheived that Atonement, the Mechanism for how it worked, if You Will.
Also, the Article itself does have an error in it, in that it classifies the Churches Of Christ as Protestant. This is not accurate, as they are properly a Restorationist Church. Restorationism, while emergent from Protestntism, is distinct from it in the denial of Salvation By Faith Alone.
Who gave Wikipedia the authority to determine the date of Christmas? Here is American Heritage Dictionary: "Christmas, December 25, the day on which this feast is observed as a public holiday in many countries." Pick whatever dictionary, encyclopedia, or reference work you like. They all say something similar to this. 99to99 ( talk) 20:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
That's rich coming from an editor who has been claiming to know the correct nature and no one else does. In short, it's time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a full list of items for Christmas dinner:
-- Nate-Dawg921 ( talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Economy" section, I would like to add a citation to the follow sentence, which currently lacks a citation: "Film studios release many high-budget movies during the holiday season, including Christmas films, fantasy movies or high-tone dramas with high production values to hopes of maximizing the chance of nominations for the Academy Awards." The citation would be as follows: Zauzmer, Ben (January 31, 2020).
"Oscar Seasons: The Intersection of Data and the Academy Awards". Harvard Data Science Review. 2 (1).
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.6230ce9f. Retrieved 15 November 2021. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in
(
help)
Witchylib23 (
talk)
19:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
|doi=
Being than most of the Apostolic churches are mentioned due to their own local traditions, we are missing the Christmas date and reasoning for:
-- Coquidragon ( talk) 09:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to write more details about Christmas and more religious things 24.115.212.117 ( talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In Czech Republic and Slovakia, Xmas is actually the 24th of December 86.49.156.56 ( talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hey can i request to be a part of editing wikipedia, thank you! Aaliyahisnothere ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: Judging by the usage of 'infobox holiday' and the short description shouldn't the lead section state that Christmas is a holiday too? An annual festival observed by many nations/cultures would be a holiday anyway, just like Thanksgiving and Halloween. Waddles 🎄 ❄️️ 18:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The scripture that supports "sixth month" is Luke 1:26 which reads, Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ (in now the month sixth) commonly translated, "Now the sixth month", but this follows a passage that discusses Elizabeth's conception and that she "hid herself [for] five months". (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A24-26&version=KJV;SBLGNT) So the it's more likely that the author is saying "in Elizabeth's sixth month" rather than "in the sixth month of the year". If it were the latter, he is writing in Greek to a supposedly Greek audience, so they would assume a Greco-Roman calendar, not the Hebrew one. At best, this is making assumptions back into the text rather than the other way around. A quote from The Sunday Lectionary: Ritual Word, Paschal Shape would be useful here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The table of dates when different people celebrate Christmas says that the Amish and Anabaptists do it on 25 December by the Julian calendar and then gives the Gregorian date as 6 January. This is wrong, since the Gregorian date is 7 January (which is the date given in the rest of the table for people observing the Julian calendar). The sources cited in this article and other articles all confirm that 6 January is indeed the date on which the Amish celebrate Christmas though. This means there must be some other explanation. It's not just about the different calendars. (Maybe it's for the same reason as the Armenians, but the sources don't say that.) Richard75 ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do we celebrate Christmas 27.63.182.75 ( talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
1. They are part of the same holiday season, 2. "Merry christ as and a happy new year" is a common greeting, 3. Many countries' new year celebrations use christmas themes. Martianmister ( talk) 21:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.fethiyetimes.com/magazine/20087-turkish-christmas-celebrating-noel-new-years-eve.html https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/turkey/new-year-eve https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/30/how-soviets-came-to-celebrate-new-years-like-christmas-and-why-russians-still-do/ https://time.com/5922931/santa-claus-soviet-history/ http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/season-s-greetings-eastern-europe Martianmister ( talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be solely focused on the Christian side of Christmas, hardly discussing the historical origins being a Roman and pagan holiday but rather connecting that to the bible. This shows an overwhelming amount of religious bias that should be investigated. Christmas originally was pagan and Roman, was appropriated by the Christians, then has been removed from the religion and turned into a secular celebration of giving and community 101.188.130.15 ( talk) 03:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section on Controversies contains the statement that “Christmas Day did not become a public holiday in Scotland until 1958.” The date makes no sense and contradicts the 1871 date given in the Wikipedia link provided in the above quoted line. The date should be changed to be consistent. 23.242.167.156 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The sections titled "Calculation Hypothesis" and "Solstice Date Hypothesis" contain no counterarguments and directly quote one historian's subjective assessment that it is "a thoroughly viable hypothesis." In contrast, the section titled "History of Religions Hypothesis" does contain counterarguments, and in fact counterarguments make up the majority of the text in this section, some of which is repeated text from the previous sections. It is obvious which hypothesis the writers of the article support, therefore the article is biased. This complaint has already been made under the topic "religious exclusivity," but instead of responding to that criticism, an editor decided that scolding an anonymous member of the public for not providing specific examples was more appropriate than considering whether there was a problem with the article. I'm writing to show that the public is more than capable of giving a specific description of whats wrong with this article. The question is whether christian wikipedia editors are actually capable of recognizing their own bias. 183.108.104.61 ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The two hypotheses presented after the Calculation Hypothesis section appear clearly framed as counter-arguments themselves to Calculation. Counter-arguments to counter-arguments are appropriate and scholarly. Furthermore I am aware of no compelling reason why Christians would favor one hypothesis over another. Finally, if you see a problem with this section, you are welcome to do the research yourself to improve it. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 00:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[copyvio redacted] [link redacted] Shurahbeelhamid ( talk) 16:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Replace History title with Origin of Christmas and add the section below under the new title" The true origins of Christmas stem from both the pagan and Roman cultures. The Romans actually celebrated two holidays in the month of December. The first was Saturnalia, which was a two-week festival honoring their god of agriculture Saturn. On December 25th, they celebrated the birth of Mithra, their sun god. Also in December, in which the darkest day of the year falls, the pagan cultures lit bonfires and candles to keep the darkness at bay. The Romans also incorporated this tradition into their own celebrations. As Christianity spread across Europe, the Christian clergy were not able to curb the pagan customs and celebrations. Since no one knew Jesus’s date of birth, they adapted the pagan ritual into a celebration of his birthday. [1] [2] ERobayoCa ( talk) 01:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Christmas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was a Jewish tradition of celebrating the conception of a prophet on the date of his death. The Church accepted that Jesus died on March 25th (though it is not celebrated this way since the feast is tied instead to the variable date of Easter); therefore, the Church celebrates the conception of Christ on March 25th, the Annunciation. Nine months after, Christ is born, leading to the date of Christmas on December 25th. St. Hippolytus of Rome records that Christians celebrated Christmas on December 25th: "For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th" (Commentary on Daniel [4.23.3; written ca. AD 202-211]). GoatCheese1 ( talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
In the paragraph just above the Etymology section,
Christkind needs to have "the" in front of it.
—DIV
Support
good-faith
IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping
range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse
collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as
semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(
1.145.86.40 (
talk)
23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC))
on line 13, article reads "It was a traditional Jewish belief that great men were born and died on the same day, so lived a whole number of years, without fractions: Jesus was therefore considered to have been conceived and died on March 25," the word "born" here is an obvious error. should be "conceived" 73.25.220.221 ( talk) 21:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)