Jump to content

Talk:Christmas/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Recent reverts

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)

Second edit war in two days. I don't care about the content, but this article is on my watch list and if this continues, I will report again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, I can't find any source or citation for this claim "The first recorded Christmas celebration was in Rome in 336." I would love to read more about this, and it seems this is also attributed to Pope Julius somehow, but everything I find is just another unsourced article, probably with everything using itself as citations. At the very least, these two claims should have "citation needed" added to them.Commanderk33n 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the WSJ doesn't compare to a scholarly work. Still it is strictly copyedited and worthy of "consideration."
The last paragraph of Pope Julius I contains the info about splitting the birth of Jesus (and not the Nativity) into two separate dates. I've amended that sentence in the article, and added a footnote, which it needed. Thanks for pointing that out.
Docetists said that Jesus only "appeared" to have a body, but didn't really. Arianist said he had a human body, but was not divine, by modern definition, inasmuch as He didn't exist prior his human birth. So the Arianists did not dispute his birth. Student7 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked out the video you added as a source. It's even worse than the WSJ article, little more than a compilation of urban legends. Saturnalia was a solstice festival? Please. More to the point, the video doesn't even mention Epiphany. (It's a concept above the level of the viewership they are aiming at.) Pandas and people (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-controversies-about-christ-arius-and-alexander/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it wasn't about the divinity of Jesus. It was all about the whether a certain Greek word should be written with an iota or not. The Arians said Jesus was of similar substance (homoioúsios) to that of God the father. The Catholics said, no, they aren't of similar substance. They are homooúsios. This used to be translated as "one in being." Since 2011, the official translation is "consubstantial."[1] Don't worry about getting this one right. The limited nature of human language makes the concept impossible to explain. Pandas and people (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Almost correct. What you have wrong is that there was no "Catholic" church at that point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Arian controversy is the original context in which the church came to be called "Catholic." It became, "One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church," as the Nicene Creed says -- and as the Arians disputed. Pandas and people (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Taking Pandas word for poor footnoting. Found a better one in Baylor.edu. I think this works, except might be better placed in the article. Student7 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring

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)

@Student7: Not to fear. If you put a {{under construction}} template on the article as your first edit (and remember to remove it when you're done) I don't think that you would be bothered. Alternately, you could make a copy of the article as it is now and modify it in your own sandbox and put into place when you're done. If you really want to avoid edit wars, you could ask for a review of your sandboxed version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Christmas has a unique three-mass liturgy, which gave the priest three opportunities to denounce heresy. (Julius was a vigorous opponent of Arianism.) There is no reason to think that the feast was created to counter some group that questioned whether or not Jesus had actually been born. I think this is getting into WP:OR territory. NCE has a full-length article on Pope Julius, but it doesn't say anything about him splitting Christmas and Epiphany. Here is what it does say: "An anonymous author known as the CHRONOGRAHER of 354 recorded that Rome observed the birth date of Jesus on December 25, but indicates that the practice had been known since 336. This means that Julius was the first pope to celebrate Christmas on the now traditional day." Julius was pope from 337 to 352, according to the article. Pandas and people (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Inserted Baylor.edu footnote, as mentioned above. This says nothing about the use of the Nativity to combat Arianism. I don't doubt that Julian fought Arianism, however.
Thanks for the suggestion, Walter. I will be unable to do much between now and mid-January. Happy editing! Student7 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Date formats

The closest thing to a consensus here is to stop pointlessly re-writing dates. Alsee (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2017 (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)

My personal preference would be to revert the article back to December 2015 where both date formats (DMY & YMD) were used however that would result in a loss of everyones edits, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of the options you present reversion to when both were in use is the worst. MDY/DMY is always going to lead to factional infighting, both are pretty awful. I have kicked off a discussion at Use dmy dates#Visibility asking for a hatnote to be produced by the template, since as well as confusing editors these two styles confuse readers. YMD is the best of the options you provide. The one you haven't mentioned, that of spelling out the month in full, is the best of the lot. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I do MDY without really thinking about it. If someone else takes responsibility, it's all the same to me. It should be one way or the other, not restored to an earlier mixed format. Pandas and people (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Martin, Perhaps I'm thinking of this in a different way to others but to me one format shouldn't take over another especially when both have been used for a good 5-6 years without any issues in this article, Unfortunately with this being an English site both Brits and Americans clash over various things (spellings, dates etc etc), Usually for American articles I would use MDY and British would be DMY however because this is a worldwide article I don't really see why one format should take over another especially when as I say both have been used for a good 5-6 years without issue,
It's not so much a "taking over" but of settling on one format so as not to confuse the reader. My favourite Wikiphrase is "remember WP:RF", which I fear is something that can get lost in discussions such as this. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly agree the reader always comes first here, But if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in "the wrong way" I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to (It's the exact same with Americans ie them seeing the dates in DMY and pobably wanting them changed), See having them as both would've kept both sides of the pond happy and I wonder if having these as YMD would also confuse the readers, It's a tough one, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
In hindsight reverting back was and still is rather disruptive and I think keeping them in YMD is the best option as that way it stops this crap, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Keeping would be MDY not DMY. Sorry. And you're right, standardizing on a date format would stop this crap. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There's absolutely no reason to have this article in MDY especially when most countries go by DMY anyway?!, Unless you can actually explain why MDY should be used in the article then I see no reason why it should remain and having as YMD stops this crap!, Having it as DMY or MDY just causes moronic issues like this. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There absolutely no reason to have this article move away from MDY format especially when most authors supported it at the time of selection. See. Two editors can make absolute statements. I can see that there is no way to sway your opinion away from DMY and even after an editor you called to the RfC gave you a reason and changed the date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The only reason no one objected is because no one knew and at the time I never knew either, Wrong - As you have been repeatedly told I don't want DMY in the article - Sure it would actually make sense if it was however having it as DMY would ignite this exact discussion which is why as you have been told I would prefer YMD, I haven't asked anyone to come here so that's utter bollocks for a start and to accuse me of CANVASSING is absolutely laughable!, Also just to clarify - I'm the one who has changed it to YMD and I'm the one who as of this morning has self reverted and changed it back to MDY, You have absolutely no reason as to why this should be in a completely different format other than "another editor done it" - Not really a compelling arguement. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Colossal shrug. I wish I had some brilliant insight to offer, but honestly, Santa is free to come down my chimney on 25 December or on December 25 or in the middle of the merry month of May, for all I care. Neither format bothers me in the slightest, and neither does a mixture in the same article—as long as there's consistency within a given sentence or, preferably, an entire paragraph. While consistency per se may be a net positive across various articles, complete consistency is unlikely to do more good than harm; there should always be room for exceptions. There's a lot of quiet date-format changing goes on, just as there are a lot of WP:ENGVAR-related spelling changes. Often it's ignorant (edit summary: "typo"), usually it's well meaning, and it really shouldn't be a big deal in articles lacking a regional focus. By the same token, if someone changes it back again, that shouldn't be a big deal either. If, by sheer numbers, speakers of American English are overwhelming international articles, that strikes me as both unfortunate and inevitable. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Added: I will say this much more: the DMY format seems more logical, so I'm always glad to see it (and apply it) in an article. MDY is what many of us are used to, but tradition is rarely a good reason for intransigence. Probably beyond the scope of this non-centralized discussion, I know. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:50, 29 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)

I think the article should be harmonized under one standard, and since it already is standarized MDY, we should keep it that way.--Adam in MO Talk 04:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue as ofcourse you're entitled to your opinions but just because one format was applied it doesn't mean it's correct ?, That's like me coming here and applying DMY ... I too would expect some crap for it (ignoring the accidental DMY-convert days ago), I hate to sound like a broken record but I don't see any policies that state "articles should be in one format" especially where the article is a worldwide thing and not just a british or american article, As I said I'm honestly not trying to argue at all I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why we should use one format over another "just because it was applied rightly or wrongly", –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
MOS:ENGVAR covers this, particularly at MOS:ARTCON. Commonality within an article is required, an international form is preferred ("Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English") but if there is no common ground settle on ONE format. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion between Dave & Walter
Davey's comment that "if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in 'the wrong way' I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to" is colossally ignorant, I'm sorry to say. 65 million in the UK could be confused. Add another approximately 25 million for Australia and 5 million for New Zealand. Canadians are familiar with both formats (but MDY is more common) while the population of the US, if they found DMY would leave about 325 million confused. That's three times the number. So your argument based on numbers doesn't work at all. Unless of course, you include the population of India, and then all bets are off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Finding (or at least trying to find) faults in every answer I make doesn't help you, I or this RFC, If you read my comment carefully I did say "if you're a British user coming here and seeing the dates all in "the wrong way" I would imagine they'd want them changed but wouldn't know how to (It's the exact same with Americans ie them seeing the dates in DMY and probably wanting them changed)," - I'm not going to sit here and single handedly name every country that uses DMY or MDY however the point was readers of any nationality could be confused, I'm not going to argue with you for another week we'v already done that directly above. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to find faults, simply pointing out that it's a flawed argument. And for the record, you refuse to accept that there is a date format that is applied even if it was applied incorrectly. You also have made it clear you won't accept any date other than DMY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on that assumption, WP:SNOWBALL is likely the best option and continue with the current format as applied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong - As I've said above "I think keeping them in YMD is the best option as that way it stops this crap" ... I think that speaks for itself, SNOWBALL's irrelevant at this stage, Anywho I've collapsed this as we should let others have their say and not take up the RFC with our issues, Anyway have a great day. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong - YMD is not the best option either as it's not common in prose, but we can certainly make all of the references use that date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the article appears to use both UK and US varieties of spelling, so there doesn't seem an established Engvar, nor is there a close cultural connection to any English country. YMD/YDM seems like the worst option as being 'foreign' to everybody. DMY is standard for spoken UK English and letters, but is actually being widely replaced by MDY in 'press' English (news sources increasingly use it as standard). Why not embrace the season of goodwill (or toss a coin? or establish what the original Engvar was?) and just settle for one or the other, which if we wish to serve the max. number of readers would probably be MDY. It would upset me as a Brit to read Shakespeare/Churchill/Westminster articles written in US English, but Christmas? I couldn't give a FFFfffffff … …, nor should anyone else. Pincrete (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Religion and philosophy category? Hasn't anybody here read The Santa Delusion ?
Can't say I've ever seen YDM, it would be guaranteed to cause problems. The ISO standard of YMD seems logical, if unfamiliar. If you actually want to make it read easily and be informative to all readers simply spell out the month. 11/12/2012 is confusing, 11 December 2012 is not. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Can't do YMD in prose. Standardizing on spelling would also be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep existing. The Manual of style specifies that the entire article should be in a single format, preferably the one that has evolved. There is no better one, only different, equally inadequate alternatives, so why switch over? (Eventually this should be a user-switch allowing all users to see their preferred format; see Wikipedia:Date debate for discussion on this.) Clean Copytalk 12:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

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)

Not done: Thanks for the suggestion, but the reference you suggest does not meet the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:39, 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New Categories at Christmas

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)

Andy why would that be a problem? Are we bound by space? Is there a limit to the number of categories that can be listed on any specific article? If an editor encounters a page that is missing an obvious category that the editor knows about and does not apply it, should that editor add it? It's my opinion that there's no problem with including all of these provided that the nation or region is discussed in the article, or a RS can be provided that shows that it is a public holiday there. So what's the actual problem? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, category:Public holidays in the United States‎ isn't needed as category:Federal holidays in the United States, which is a child of that cat, is already listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The preceding is the list of cats. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 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)

I think if we were to add all of these categories we would be accused of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Is Category:Public holidays in Denmark a defining category for Christmas? Editor2020 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see how OVERCATEGORIZATION applies. granted, I only looked at each section briefly. Which specific section do you think applies? And yes, it is a defining category for Christmas in all of those locations. If Christmas is a public holiday in each of those regions, should it not be part of the category? Is it not a defining category for this article? Of course. How could it not be? Just because it's widely celebrated does not mean that it's not a member of those categories or that it somehow dilutes the participation of the article in appropriate categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how others read it. Editor2020 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Christmas&curid=6237&diff=783747435&oldid=782877224 expresses it quite well I'd say. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've used the categorytree mechanism to include all these categories and have removed the seriously oversized list. If someone wants to add headings/boxes/reader instructions, feel free. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Terribly efficient! Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is hard to define if all the categories are essential for the page. but the page is definitely essential for the categories. Since we have the categories "Public holidays in X" it only makes sense to include Christmas (as well as Easter Day, New Year's Day and other widely used national holidays) in the relevant categories, because they are essential for the category. The categorytree added now does not make sense for this article; it just lists all countries that has a public holiday category - also the countries not having Christmas as a public holiday (Azerbaijan, China, Iran, Iraq etc). Could a solution be to create the categories Category:Public holidays in Europe‎, * Category:Public holidays in North America, * Category:Public holidays in South America and * Category:Public holidays in Oceania for Christmas, Easter Day and New Year's Day? Pardy (talk) 22:11, 8 June 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Various theories for the choice of December 25 date for Christmas

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)

The Sol Invictus theory has been widely rejected, but it was a popular theory a while ago. There is a brief mention of it in the choice of December 25 date section. If you want to improve that, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to trim down the Intro section?

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)

Exponentially might be a slight exaggeration, but the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the lede certainly would benefit from some judicious trimming. (Trimming as in cutting, not trimming as in trimming a Christmas tree, which would be making it longer.) RivertorchFIREWATER 04:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If it were as in a Christmas tree, it would make it more beautiful, not necessarily longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

"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)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 05:00, 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 need to specify what section of the article you are tlaking about because the article is way too long to read and find the exact sentence you are talking about. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 05:56, 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)

 Done You're both pulling my leg, right? Anon quoted text: "rest of the", and that phrase appears only once in the article. Fixed. Anon: you could have been a bit more clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 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)

Interesting concept. Registered users who have attained a certain number of edits automatically have the right to make changes to some types of locked articles. Based on the number of edits you've made over the past month, if you had been registered, you would have right to edit the page unencumbered with vague requests that confuse some editors. Since unregistered and new editors tend to cause problems and are not concerned with the project as a whole, some pages have been locked to them. If you want to see this change, raise it at a village pump (WP:VILLAGEPUMP). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 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)

I am a volunteer and so I can only speak for myself. Those people who have said that Wikipedia is not a place for innovation are people who want to do something that the rest of the community thinks is not needed or an improvement. I have seen great deal of innovation over time. See WP:CONSENSUS.
Unless you have a suggestion to improve this article, I won't be responding here any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Count down clock

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)

Will you make your clock adapt to the location of the reader? That would get you a complete padded cell! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
But we'd have to 1) agree which day gifts are exchanged to know how the countdown should work and which timezone the reader is in, 2) accept the premise that the primary goal of Christmas is consumer-driven and 3) deal with the edit wars that would result in its removal. I for one am opposed to the idea. It's not encyclopedic nor is it worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Countdown/doc runs on server time, so yes, that adapts to the location of the reader! Will this entitle me get my own padded cell with an en suite Jacuzzi? Aspro (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It also states that it "this template should not be used in articles per MOS:TIME and MOS:DATED." Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh shucks. You sound just like Nurse Ratched ! Aspro (talk) 20:00, 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)

"Relative-time expressions are acceptable for very long periods, such as geological epochs: Humans diverged from other primates long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures." This would have to be updated annually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Support - but only if Aspro buys each of their fellow Wikipedians a Christmas present. (No stocking stuffers!) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you for your warmhearted support Rivertorch. Think I could afford one descent present per year and I wouldn't dream of stocking fillers like Madonna's greatest hits or anything like that (but may slip in the odd copy of Albert Einstein's General and Special theory of Relativity for those editors that don't suffer from insomnia  but wish they did). As there are some 31,987,232 current WP editors that would mean that my descendants would need a count down clock to know when my obligation of gifts ends – which would be some where around the year 31 989 249 AD. Not so sure that Walter Görlitz is right about humans diverging from other primates long ago. As I have neighbors who sit in the yard and are still in the habit of barbecuing raw meat over a fire, whilst making hooping noises late into the night and communicate with each other in animal grunts. A DNA test would help to establish their ancestry. If they turn out to be our homo sapiens missing link to the rest of the primate world – lets hope that they stay missing. Aspro (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but ... I think this idea may be able to be incorporated in a more encyclopedic and egalitarian fashion... we could propose that a field be added to the {{Infobox holiday}} template that would indicate how many days there are remaining until the specified holiday in the specified calendar year. It could be something like: "Days until [holiday]: 276", and therefore could be added to any article for any holiday in that template. So perhaps bring this idea to Template_talk:Infobox holiday, OP. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Inconsistencies

The first paragraph of section "20th century" and the first one of "Decorations" are inconsistent:

20th century

Up to the 1950s, in the UK, many Christmas customs were restricted to the upper classes and better-off families. The mass of the population had not adopted many of the Christmas rituals that later became general. The Christmas tree was rare.

Decorations

The practice of putting up special decorations at Christmas has a long history. In the 15th century, it was recorded that in London it was the custom at Christmas for every house and all the parish churches to be "decked with holm, ivy, bays, and whatsoever the season of the year afforded to be green".[161]

Christmas gift

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

The External Link to "curlie.org" is a nonexistent or broken reference. Mariasala2 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

minus Removed. Even if it worked, it wouldn't really be appropriate to have it there. CityOfSilver 19:59, 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)

Translation

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)

I found a source but I'm not sure of its reliability. Since I have received little help with this, I'll just go ahead.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"VIII kal Ian" is 8 days (inclusive counting) back from January 1st, that is 25th December. I've added it as an footnote, feel free to muck about with it as you will but the bare partial translation will not be obvious to a reader unversed in Latin dates. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Martin of Sheffield that's the help I was looking for. My source doesn't have that one detail, though. And I added "8 Kalends January" to the text because that is part of the translation. If someone wants to know what that means then I guess the note is sufficient.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hippeastrum versus amaryllis

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

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)

Not done. I'm not sure the connotation is that clear, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/commemoration vs https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/celebration for instance. I'm not opposed to the change, but we should probably get buy-in before we make it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, as the word celebration is already used immediately thereafter, we don't want to repeat it twice.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Date format yet again

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)

As per Talk:Christmas/Archive_8#RFC_-_Date_formats consensus was essentially to go with MDY which is what you wanted so what's the issue ?, You wanted MDY you got it so there's no discussion to be had, Case closed as far as I'm concerned. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that we're not changing the date format every season. And we're not swearing on people's talk page summaries, but that's a separate issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that we're not changing the date format every season. ..... Bit ironic isn't it!, Unless you've forgotten you wanted MDY back in 2016 I can't recall why I wanted it changed and quite honestly I couldn't care less at this point, Point is they've remained at MDY since their creation and whether you've had a change of mind or not this article's staying at MDY. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The only irony is that last year you were fighting to have dmy and this year you're fighting to make me look badly. I'm not. I want a consensus. I'm not sure how you can miss that. I don't want an argument over this ever blasted year. If you'd like it to be MDY, I would be glad to allow that. If you don't, then stop trolling. Since you don't care, then I'll be pleased as punch to state that the consensus is MDY and leave it at that. Cheers. Unless someone argues against that, I'll make that change within the week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make you look bad at all - As I said you wanted MDY so you got it so what's the issue ? ... Exactly there is none!, We don't need to seek a new consensus every year!, The previous consensus is fine!, No one's trolling! - You're the one with an issue not me!, We were all pleased last year and we're all pleased this year so now consensus is to use MDY you can stop changing it and go do something productive here!, Cheerio. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:40, 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)

Not really about the date format, but that's Christmas Eve, and it is mentioned in the infobox. How would you suggest that topic be introduced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

New Image

Personally, I support the new image recently removed as it is similar to Easter’s image. IWI (chat) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Crumpled Fire I don't believe it that there's consensus for File:Nativity tree2011.jpg. If File:Worship of the shepherds by bronzino.jpg doesn't fit here because it doesn't show a tree at least put something nicer in the lede. Please don't insult Christmas. edit summary should read "I don't see consensus for that image" SlightSmile 13:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the Bronzino, mainly because the alternative is tacky. I was wondering about criteria used in previous discussions, but I can only find Talk:Christmas/Archive_6#Infobox_picture. William Avery (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A Christmas tree is a relatively new idea, Christmas is the birth of Christ, not a tree. Accusing me of insulting Christmas is absurd. IWI (chat) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment I was addressing Crumpled Fire above about that awful image that he reinserted which imho insults Christmas as well as the readers. What a misunderstanding! I have to work on my ambiguous wording. SlightSmile 15:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Apologies. Yes this discussion seems to be consensus until someone objects. IWI (chat) 15:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I would submit the 2011 neither illustrates the Nativity nor can one really distinguish a Christmas tree in the background. It's not true that an image has to be unappealing to the reader to be encyclopedic. If the Bronzino is a bit too holy and there has to be a tree at least let's find a nicer image. That 2011 image is not Christmas. SlightSmile 16:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Submit what you want. It does illustrate the nativity as it has Mary, Joseph, sheep and a shepherd. The Magi don't traditionally show up until January 6 and in the biblical narrative presented by Matthew for as long as two years after the birth, so I have no idea why they're represented in creches to start with.
It's not that Bronzino is "too holy" (biblical inaccuracies already discussed) it's that it's too large, too ornate, and does not accurately represent all elements of a modern Christmas in its presentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And a donkey, which may be an allusion to the triumphal entry. No bovine or porcine representatives. The former would have been unlikely and the latter would have been offensive in a Jewish context. Goats are more likely but are under represented. Also, no fowl, so I can see your objections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Nativity tree 2011 per Walter. I've been busy and unable to discuss or look into this much yet, but if you look through the talk history there was consensus to use an image which was representative of both the religious and cultural elements of Christmas. So if anyone can find another image which nicely accomplishes that, feel free to bring it here to talk and we can discuss adding it. Thinking the current image is ugly is subjective, I think it looks nice and the fact it's survived in the infobox unaltered for 5 years shows others must also be okay with it.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: Well that’s a turn of events. We'll have to use the one mentioned or leave it blank temporarily. IWI (chat) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
That was a project-wide harmful nomination when no rush was required. IWI (chat) 22:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to AFG and assume you did not mean to indicate that I nominated bad images on Commons as something harmful...? (t) Josve05a (c)

Oh no, it should be deleted, but it is a harmful nomination nevertheless. IWI (chat) 22:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Making a sattement that an edit is harmful is not direcly a nice thing to do towards another wiki colleage. The edit may cause distress, annoyance, (or even harm), but stating that an edit itself is harmful despite it being for the good of the common goal of the project, is not exacly in the Christmas spirits... (t) Josve05a (c) 22:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, It is not harmful at all! Any other day it would have been a welcome nomination, but today it might be a bit inconvinient. However, especially since a lot of people are looking at it and wanting to reusing it etc, it is of outmost importance that it be nominated and remove it as quickly as possble to cause the least amount of damage to possible reusers. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
No ill intent in the comment whatsoever, just a passing statement. Another example of editors focusing more on small comments than what actually matters. Focus on the content. IWI (chat) 22:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
You were the one to bring up the edit (nomination) being harmful, not me. But, you're right, let's focus on content shall we. The section below #Infobox image seems to be discussing the new image, so let's focus our energy on that instead. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Article too one-sided on the issue of Muslims celebrating Christmas and no mention of Hindus

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)

The "whole story" is that Christmas has been popularly secularized and globalized, which is common knowledge. If you feel like adding your own factoids with well-supported evidence that further corroborates this reality, go right ahead. To stick a fat NPOV label on the whole article over this is slightly ridiculous. On that note, Christmas is is a "big deal" in India (more sources please) a bit less than it is in Japan the way you suggest.-~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. My nephew lives in Japan so yes. The fact that some Muslims (in fairly large numbers in local situations) celebrate Christmas in fact of prohibitions isn't really the same thing as you are suggsting, they are celebrating it as a religious celebration, not a secular one. But if you're going to use words like "factoid", I guess you aren't interested. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support the removal of the tag. I have no issues with expanding the coverage to how other world religions approach the celebration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

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)

@Vermont: I like it better too! ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes me too, btw the page has been fully protected. IWI (chat) 13:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is time to expand the protection for this article

what do you guys think? 141.126.208.123 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. IWI (chat) 22:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that I was protecting against vandalism only, the new protection is against a dispute. The article needs to go back to indefinite semi-protection later. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Yes I was aware of this. IWI (chat) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

Cheers to whoever decided to fully unprotect this article on Boxing Day, causing mass vandalism. IWI (chat) 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose he thought he was in the charitable Christmas spirit, perhaps in an unwise way, haha...--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope a mistake. :) IWI (chat) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Bank Holidays in the UK

"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)

Material on the history of the date

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)

This edit is problematic in several ways. The New SCM Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship and New Catholic Encyclopedia both recommend Roll's Toward and Thomas Talley's Origins of the Liturgical Year (1991) as go to sources on this subject. The Hippolytus story literally uses a blog as a source. Furthermore, the story is debunked by Roll.
As for Theophilus of Caesarea, the only source cited is from the 16th century. Neither Roll nor Talley mention him.
Whether sheep were kept inside or outside in December has nothing to do with the date of Christmas, which was determined several centuries after the event. FineStructure137 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@FineStructure137: why is it problematic in any way? It was explained and I had not read this discussion. It was present prior to your bold but opinionated removal. Sorry you took offence to keeping sourced data. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it your view that Magdeburg Centuries is a perfectly good source, especially when modern accounts of the origin of Christmas don't mention this story? FineStructure137 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not what I wrote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The material you want to add is sourced to Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origine Festorum Chirstianorum. There is no English translation for this book. The only way to verify the story would be to go to a research library and check out a Latin facsimile edition. Magdenburg Centuries is not known for the quality of its scholarship. It is a polemic whose thesis is that the pope is the anti-Christ. FineStructure137 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you please stop making assumptions?
It's not material I want to add. It's material that you removed with poor rationale. When I read your comments here I had no problems with removing it, but I did not self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple problems

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). 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)

Added back and removed again. @Somedifferentstuff: are you intentionally edit warring, or were you unaware of WP:BRD and the discussion I started? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
In short, the topics are not problematic, but they are covered better in the rest of the article so no additional sources are needed, particularly when they're special interest stories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pagan origins of Christmas

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)

@Crumpled Fire:. Notifying of discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The consensus on the lead sentence has been in place for years; the first and foremost point to make here is that we have to go with what the sources say. All notable sources define Christmas succinctly as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, and this is the universally-accepted primary definition of the holiday. The "pagan"-derived traditions associated with the celebration of Christmas in some countries, emphasis on "some", might not be part of the Christmas traditions of other countries (WP:GLOBAL may apply here, as in many cases the "pagan" elements of Christmas are only emphasized in Western/European societies). Additionally, the change is too heavily-weighted toward the history of the holiday rather than the definition of it, the latter of which is what we're supposed to be accomplishing in this article's opening sentence. As Walter mentioned, the pagan connections are already mentioned later in the intro; it has no business in the lead sentence.
The newly-constructed opening sentence by User:Rolling Phantom is also agenda-tinged and IMO misleading... the holiday by the name of Christmas wasn't first "celebrated" by pagans as claimed, it was first celebrated by Christians, because it was invented and named by Christians ("Christ's Mass"). It may have had many of its pop culture customs, including the very date on which it takes place, be influenced by prechristian European polytheistic practices, but that's irrelevant to how it's defined. Hanukkah has elements influenced by pre-Jewish pagan practices; Eid has elements influenced by pre-Islamic pagan practices—you'll never see anyone attempt to edit the lead for Eid to say "Eid is a festival of pagan origin", it's ridiculous. I would suggest that Christmas is targeted in such a way because of its ubiquitous prominence in English-speaking Western society, which is becoming increasingly secular or "postchristian", and therefore there is increasingly a want amongst certain people to diminish its Christian definition. There's also the case of "having your cake and eating it too" here — we often hear of things like "Festivus for the rest of us" and an effort to speak in terms of "the holidays" instead of Christmas so as not to exclude or offend non-Christians, but yet Christmas is also not even a Christian holiday? Well, which is it? Leave the lead be.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 06:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Why are you reverting an edit with sources that should be good enough in the first place? Its no reason for that other than that You dont like what it says. That doesnt change the truth, however grim (for you). Is your opinion more worth than several sources containing the truth? If so, the article isnt worth shit. I have tried to edit pages with contents related to christianity where faith is described as truth as I dont think that is appropriate in an encyclopedia. This was consequently reverted as well, under equally poor excuses that the recurring editors of the pages agreed on. That means that a group of certain people with the same opinions have seized control over the pages, and the content cant be regarded as accurate because of this. No neutral board to discuss and settle the matter seem to exist within Wikipedia. So its nothing to do about it then.
Rolling Phantom (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the reason why the revert was made was explained, but to hammer the point home: WP:UNDUE weight on the topic. You're clearly not tracking with the arguments made by either Crumpled Fire or myself. We have never claimed that we do not like what it says. We have both stated that the topic is covered later in the lede, so contrary to your objection, this is a neutral board to discuss and settle the matter. Perhaps if you could summarize our objections and discussion points then address them. That would go a long way to bringing this issue to resolution in a neutral way. However, you have a singular WP:POV and appear to be WP:SOAPBOXing and grand-standing to try to get your point heard. Please engage in the discussion as we have tried to. I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding or language barrier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
To put it mildly, it seems extremely odd that the lead appears to lack any mention of the pre-Christian festival of Yule, which multiple sources appear to suggest was a strong influence on the Christian festival of Christmas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The lede should be a summary of the article. Yule is mentioned in two sections. How would you suggest including those elements? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The origins of Christmas are clearly based on the stories of the birth of Jesus. For various reasons, some connected with older pagan traditions, it became celebrated at various dates in mid-winter and accumulate over time traditions and practices from other religions. It didn't start as a pagan holiday, how could it? Doug Weller talk 16:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Yule was an old tradition from times of old when christianity came to scandinavia. The priests and christian kings couldnt stop people from celebrating as they pleased at home, so it became an officially christian celebration. Similar things probably happened in other european cultures as well. Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
[User:Roller Phantom]] asks editors to read the Norwegian versions. Funny thing, no.wiki was changed yesterday[6] from 'Christmas' is an annual holiday celebrated in memory of Jesus birth" to " 'Christmas' is an annual holiday. It is an original pagan feast aswas celebrated in several cultures because the sun was turning." I'll admit I can't make sense of the Google translation of nn.wiki's article. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I admit I changed it, as you can see in the "history" page. There are devoted christians in Norway as well, however few of them seem to write in nynorsk.Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle:: Yule is only one of the pagan festivals said by historians to have been folded into the customs and celebrations of Christmas. What about Dies Natalis Solis Invicti? What about Saturnalia? These are all mentioned later in the lead, and the body of the article. But the point remains, and the sources support, the succinct definition of "Christmas" as the celebration of the birth of Jesus. To try and cram "it's pagan" in the lead sentence is dripping with agenda. Go with the sources.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What sources? The bible, which doesnt mention it at all?Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Would changing the first sentence to: "Christmas is a midwinter festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed primarily on December 25" be a neutral compromise? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be an improvement. Where are these other festivals "mentioned later in the lead"? Am I reading a different article or just being exceptionally stupid? It's clear that there are two different definitions of Christmas being applied in this discussion. One is the Christmas of practising Christians, who see it as a religious celebration. But, I suspect that, globally, only a minority of people who celebrate Christmas are religious Christians, and that, for most people globally, it is a predominantly secular festival with much broader connotations, many of which (lights, feasting, gift giving, etc.) long pre-date the Christian Christmas. The article needs to better reflect both definitions, not only the narrow religious one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 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)

Not even close to accurate. Martin's is closer. The fact that it is the celebration of the nativity is key though. Remember UNDUE. Its history is presumed and not universally accepted. That should be clear and so any mention of a history in Roman religion should be mentioned after the initial purpose. Also, that it has adopted some Germanic and Norse rituals should be detailed in the article before it is expounded in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. In this particular place it was the other way round though, yule adopted christmas and with time became it. Similar things may have happened other places and the other way round may have been the case in further other places. Migration may have caused traditions to change and vary. Its probably more complex than we think.
But we can agree on that midwinter fiesting is an older practice than christmas.
How about "Cristmas is an annual winter festival commemorating the birth of Jesus. The custom of celebrating mid winter predates christianity, and many customs in the celebrations themselves originates from pre christian times". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolling Phantom (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS issues with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Rolling Phantom, what you've proposed is pretty much already covered at the beginning of the fourth introductory paragraph: "The celebratory customs associated in various countries with Christmas have a mix of pre-Christian, Christian, and secular themes and origins." I would not be against moving this introductory paragraph to the second in line, if that would be preferred. Also, remember that referring to Christmas as a "winter" or "midwinter" festival also presents a potential issue with WP:GLOBAL, as many countries in which Christianity and consequently Christmas has spread are in the Southern Hemisphere, where Christmas is still held on December 25, and is most certainly not a "winter" festival. It may have originated that way, but again we're getting into putting too much WP:UNDUE weight on the history and development of the holiday rather than its definition.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 01:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Originally winter festival then. If you ask me, the article has a heavy christian bias that definitely needs to be changed. Undue weight if you so prefer. What is "already covered" in the end of the long christically oriented text isnt much to speak of. And the short definition in the beginning simply isnt adequate. Rolling Phantom (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand your objection, the article on Christmas, which is a Christian festival, is heavily biased toward Christianity? Yes, I understand that you would like it to focus more on the supposed pagan origins (really, it was the assimilation and re-purposing of possibly two different Roman festivals) and use of pagan symbols (once again, assimilation of them, but who's really keeping track?) in the lede. Does the fourth paragraph not offer a sufficient summary of the contents already sourced in the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. By way of compromise, I suggest that the opening sentence of the fourth para be expanded to incorporate the essence of Rolling Phantom's suggestion of 00:41, 1 December 2019. The essential point that is missed in the current lede is that it is not only the "celebratory customs" that draw on pre-Christian practices and beliefs - it is the very existence of the festival itself as a midwinter time for lights, feasting, gift exchanges, etc.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Then let's address the fourth paragraph. I agree it needs to be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 2 December 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)

Note that some countries -- including Sweden -- actually celebrates christmas on the 24'th December (not 25'th.)

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)

To avoid long rambling sentences and to say as succinct as possible, the consensus on the intro has been to simply state "observed primarily on December 25[a]" with a further elaboration on variances in "Note A" in the notes section. This note currently elaborates about the variance on celebration dates, but doesn't mention December 24. I will add some information about that.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Most Germanic nations exchange gifts on December 24—Christmas Eve—but recognize December 25 as Christmas Day but have different celebrations on that day. Even in nations where gift exchanges occur on the morning of December 25, December 24 is celebrated as Christmas Eve. Since it's complicated, the note is adequate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change of the title picture

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)

There have been numerous discussions regarding the title image that can be found in the talk page archives, and overall I think the consensus throughout the years has been that the image should reflect the secular and religious aspects of the holiday in a balanced way. I don't believe a Christmas tree accomplishes this because while it may be an internationally recognized symbol, it's not always specific to Christmas (e.g. the Russian New Year tree), and it doesn't balance the religious and secular elements. For years this was accomplished by an image that has now been deleted from the Commons (a nativity display with a Christmas tree as a backdrop), but after that image's removal we had a painting of the Nativity with no secular/cultural elements in the infobox for quite a while.
In light of recent discussion as seen above regarding the non-religious elements of Christmas, I believe the newest lead image works best to balance the secular/cultural and religious elements by showcasing both the Nativity and something like Christmas lights in one single, natural image. We've had collages as the lead image before to balance the religious and secular, but I find them distracting and ugly. I prefer one natural image, and one that balances the religious and secular images in a way everyone can agree on.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Well said Crumpled Fire. I've given up on siding with an image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Another thing is, that the Christmas tree was originally a Protestant "invention" and the Catholic Church had long resisted this German custom. Christmas trees stood in homes as early as the 19th century, but only in 1982 it stood for the first time in Vatican - still a symbol of Protestants. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

January 1, 1AD

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)

Was that the reason? I've never heard it before. You would need a reliable source that said the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 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)

Christingle

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019

Remove the "and Brian Cohan" it has been added by a troll sadly. 81.242.71.53 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, thank you! – Thjarkur (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Pagan Origins Rubbish

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)

@SKWills: your fix was done here and from what I can see, one of those sources is "Christmas and its cycle". New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3 (2nd ed.). Catholic University of America Press. 2002. pp. 550–557., a few direct quotes from scripture, the gutting of the entire solstice date section and other content. You also added a link to http://www.scribd.com/doc/33490806/Hijmans-Sol-The-Sun-in-the-Art-and-Religions-of-Rome and yet you call into question the credibility of the sources you removed. Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) reverted you and suggested that you "discuss major changes on talk page." I for one am still waiting for a discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

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)

 Not done - This is actively deprecated, please see WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

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)

@DSOFOreverTYU: The content currently is annual festival commemorating [[Nativity of Jesus|the birth]] of [[Jesus Christ]]. Since [[Jesus Christ]] redirects to [[Jesus]] and does what you're asking, the link is WP:NOTBROKEN and does not need to be fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Now, if you wanted to pipe to Jesus in Christianity instead, that would be a different discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Re Relation to Concurrent Celebrations

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)

 Done Made sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Atonement

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)

It's definitely an Evangelical position, but with three references (and without digging into what they say) I don't feel comfortable removing it based on your comment and my limited understanding of the topic of the theology of the incarnation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 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.

SKWills (talk) SKW.

primarily

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)

You need to read WP:RS. The Armenian church celebrates Christmas in January 19, and a minority of other churches celebrate it on days other than December 25. This is clearly indicated in the comments immediately after the changes you made. Thus “primarily” is correct and your deletion of it has been reverted. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
In Armenian, the church is celebrating a "revelation of God" or Epiphany. "Armenian Christmas" is a shorthand, an imperfect translation. The Russians celebrate on January 7, but that reflects the fact that they are using the Julian calendar. Our definition of Christmas should on be based on a published source. "Primarily" gives the reader the sense that the exact date is flexible or a matter of opinion. This does not reflect what the sources say. 99to99 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The Armenian Church is still annoyed that the rest of the church decided to change the date of Christmas to December 25 nearly 1700 years ago without consulting them or without seeking their consensus for the change. (see https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/its-still-christmas-armenia-180967689/ and other references, but my reference is from a discussion with an Armenian Catholic priest). They therefore continue to celebrate Christmas not on January 19 but on January 6.
And no, not every encyclopedia, or reference work supports your claim. In https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-christmas-in-december we see "The date was not widely accepted in the Eastern Empire, where January 6 had been favored". Should I start providing results from German and Scandinavian sources? I have not even started to look up my theological sources which would likely favour a church calendar explanation. Then there's the separation of the Julian and Gregorian calendar that muddies the water just a bit?
There are also non-traditional yet biblical narratives of the nativity: See the Gospel of John, chapter 1, and my favourite: Revelation 12:1–9.
It's usual on articles as visible as this to follow WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted and you only started to discuss after you tried to push additional changes through two additional times.
In short, the world is not as black-and-white as you might like, but don't edit war over it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You will need to find reliable sources to back your original research and the six cited sources used in the Infobox which disagree with you then. The cited source(s) will need to explicitly state that Christmas is always celebrated on the same day, December 25, by all Christian traditions.
Since even you agree that Christmas is not always celebrated on Gregorian December 25, and thus not always on the same day (even if it is on the same date, which is also factually incorrect), there’s no need to continue discussing this. And “primarily” does not insinuate or lead readers to the understanding you state, especially with a footnote in the same sentence that explains exactly what is meant. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
To whom is your comment addressed? And what change? Could you please supply a diff? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I have not proposed adding language about "by all Christian traditions." This is a strawman. To justify keeping the word "primarily" in, you need to find a source that uses this word, or something equivalent. The ancient churches that celebrated on January 6 were, like the modern Armenian church, celebrating Epiphany. This holiday is still in the liturgy of the major churches. That some modern Christians neglect to observe it is not the same as moving anything.
Oxford Dictionaries defines Christmas as, "The annual Christian festival celebrating Christ's birth, held on December 25 in the Western Church." Merriam-Webster says, "a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday." Macmilliam says, "December 25, celebrated by Christians as the day that Jesus Christ was born." 99to99 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I think we had an edit conflict. Your addition was not present when I started my second reply. My comments were directed solely towards User:99to99. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
No, User:99to99, it isn’t a “straw man”. Either Christmas is always celebrated on December 25, or primarily on December 25, or rarely on December 25, or never on December 25. We agree that the last two are false. Your insistence on the removal of “primarily” falsely implies to the reader that Christmas is always celebrated on December 25, and we have provided both ample evidence and ample reliable sources proving that is not the case. You yourself have also provided such evidence. Since the deletion you propose conflicts with reliable sources and the opinions of all editors that have responded to you thus far, and implies a factually incorrect statement, it will not stand unless you build a plurality here. I will waste no more time reiterating arguments and reliable sources that you are not addressing. A single dictionary (tertiary source), by the way, is not sufficient to overturn multiple scholarly (primary or secondary) sources. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Christmas is on December 25 by definition, as I have already shown. Even the Russian church does not dispute this. They simply calculated the date by a different method. 99to99 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, @99to99:, your claim that "January 6 were, like the modern Armenian church, celebrating Epiphany" is simply wrong. I suggest you argue with Armenian Archbishop Besak Toumaian who wrote "Why Do We Observe Christmas on January 6?". Also, it appears you did not bother to read the britannica.com article that clearly talks about the shift of Christmas from January 6 to December 25. I will also add https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/25/why-is-christmas-on-dec-25-a-brief-history-lesson-that-may-surprise-you/ that quotes the Biblical Archaeology Society's website article on the subject: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/. However, you're in good company assuming that Epiphany was what was celebrated and Christmas was a separate festival added later, as this https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-december-25.html shows the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a question of how you want to translate the Armenian word. Perhaps some translators worry that their readers won't know what the word "Epiphany" means, so they use something else. The literal translation is "God revealed." In other words, the Armenian corresponds to Theophany, the Greek word for Epiphany. (If the holiday goes back to the time when Mark was circulating as a separate Gospel, this could refer to God's appearance at the baptism, which was also celebrated on January 6).
"In accordance with reliable sources, until the fourth century, all Christians observed the feasts of Epiphany on the 6th of January. It was after the fourth century that the Roman Catholic Church decided to celebrate the Nativity on the 25th of December," according to Artak Manukean, The Armenian Church Feasts (2000), p. 34. I have already given various definitions of Christmas. None of them get hung up on the Armenian church, which is a detail that doesn't belong in the opening.
Update. I looked at Toumaian's article and was pleasantly surprised to see that he agrees with my translation: Asdvads-a-haydnootiun” (or simply “Haydnootiun”) which is a literal translation of “Theophany.” You can't get "Christ" or "mass" from the Armenian name, so how is it Christmas? See this dictionary entry. 99to99 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
You clearly did not read what the archbishop wrote. They are not celebrating Epiphany, they are celebrating the incarnation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The word incarnation does not appear in the article. Incarnation is on the same day as Annunciation. Armenians have Annunciation on April 7. For virtually all other churches, it is on March 25. That is to say, it is nine months before nativity. 99to99 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
True. The word Christmas does. You're not a reliable source, but the archbishop certainly is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to summarize, you acknowledge that both the name and the date of the Armenian holiday correspond to Epiphany and not to Christmas. Yet you still think of it as Christmas. 99to99 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source equates the Armenian church's celebration on January 6 with Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47), 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you willing to consider a dictionary? In Armenian, Christmas on December 25 is Tsnund Yisusi (Birth of Jesus). It's a different word than Epiphany/Theophany/Astuatsayaytnut’ean on January 6. See A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian (1981) by Mesrob G. Kouyoumdjian. 99to99 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you willing to consider the Armenian Archbishop. You are pushing the limits of my patience. You continue to ask questions and I have attempted to answer. You refuse to concede any points or accept the points I've made. You are, in my opinion, pushing your own PoV and not editing in good faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
+ The impression I get is that you know the right answer and are trying to draw me to your correct answer. Without acknowledging that evidence has been provided that contradicts your position, we will not be able to move forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of "I" here. You should read WP:OWN. 99to99 (talk) 09:48, 17 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)

  • Look up the definition of "primarily". It fits here. Aside from the obvious Julian calendar dates, there are still celebrations outside the 25th, including the 24th. Getting into semantics about dates in the intro sentence becomes way too convoluted. It's expanded upon later, and in the footnote.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That the festival is held on December 25 is part of the definition of Christmas. I have already cited various dictionaries to this effect.[7][8] The Orthodox churches that celebrate on the January 7 are exceptions that prove the rule. They would tell you that they are the ones that celebrate on December 25 and that the rest of the world is calculating the date using the wrong calendar. 99to99 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know if OP is hoping to wear down everyone through sheer persistence, until opponents no longer object, but it will not work. They have failed to convince anyone and have been disproven again and again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The editor is the only one who wants to remove primarily from the lede while three editors are not on-board, so it seems that consensus to remove it will be difficult to achieve. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Christmas dinner items

Here is a full list of items for Christmas dinner:

  1. Turkey
  2. Holiday Ham
  3. Mustard
  4. Eggnog
  5. Stuffing
  6. Mashed Potatoes
  7. Butter
  8. Gravy
  9. Mixed Vegetables
  10. Green Bean Casserole
  11. Mincemeat Pie
  12. Champagne
  13. Coca-Cola
  14. Roasted Chestnuts
  15. Assorted Pickles
  16. Sweet Potatoes
  17. Candied Yams
  18. Cranberry Juice
  19. Cranberry Sauce
  20. Scalloped Potatoes
  21. Figgy Pudding
  22. Fruitcake
  23. X-Mas Log
  24. Hot Apple Cider
  25. Vanilla Icing
  26. Assorted Sugar Cookies
  27. Gingerbread
  28. Vodka

--Nate-Dawg921 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. This particular to which culture or region? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

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 |doi= (help) Witchylib23 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A fixed and better-formatted citation: Zauzmer, Ben (2020-01-31). "Oscar Seasons: The Intersection of Data and the Academy Awards". Harvard Data Science Review. 2 (1). doi:10.1162/99608f92.6230ce9f. Retrieved 2021-11-15. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Christmas date

Being than most of the Apostolic churches are mentioned due to their own local traditions, we are missing the Christmas date and reasoning for:

Eastern Orthodoxy
Polish Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church of Czechia and Slovakia
Oriental Orthodoxy
Syriac Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Church

--Coquidragon (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

I want to write more details about Christmas and more religious things 24.115.212.117 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Per the edit request instructions, propose a specific change on a talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Xmas day for Czech Republic, Slovakia and a few other Slavic countries

In Czech Republic and Slovakia, Xmas is actually the 24th of December 86.49.156.56 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

While it is true that Czech Republic and Slovakia celebrate Christmas from the 24th thru 26th of December, they call the 24th "Christmas Eve", the 25th "Christmas", and the 26th "Boxing Day" per several online sources. There is no need to change the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

hey can i request to be a part of editing wikipedia, thank you! Aaliyahisnothere (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read these instructions for making an edit request. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aaliyahisnothere: To simplify Wikipedia:Protection policy, some articles are locked to all editors except administrators which is known as full protection. Other articles are restricted to editors who have shown a track-record of good edits (at least four days old and have made at least ten [not reverted or otherwise good] edits to Wikipedia) which is known as semi-protection. This article is semi-protected. Most articles on Wikipedia are not protected in any way. You may edit them and come back in five days, and you should be able to edit here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

@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 archives have a long series of discussions about this. Yes, the festival of Christmas is given as a holiday by employers and some nations, but that would probably be a better option for the lede of Christmas and holiday season than this article which is about the religious festival. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The lead section does already state "Christmas Day is a public holiday", and this is the only instance where "holiday" is used to avoid repetition. Instead of using "holiday" multiple times, we use "celebration", "feast", and "festival".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sixth month

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)

Greetings User:Walter Gorlitz! I am a bit surprised at your edit here, especially when this is very explicit in Luke 1:26. Kindly let me know if you will reconsider. If not, I will remove your tag with a reference that cites the biblical verse. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Anupam: did you read what I wrote above before posting the comment above to my talk page? Perhaps you will reconsider the use of "explicit" here to read the passage in context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No User:Walter Görlitz, I did not as I was not pinged. I understand your argument and will reword the text to reflect this, along with adding the quote parameter to the reference. I appreciate your insight. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Odd. You should have been. Ping has not been working in all instances for me recently either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Amish and Anabaptists

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)

I'm a bit sceptical about the accuracy of the Dutchman News source, because it says the Julian calendar is a lunar calendar, which is certainly wrong. I think we need a better source. Richard75 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking again at the Little Christmas article, it looks like it's not really about the birth of Jesus, but about the Epiphany, when the Three Kings paid homage to Jesus; it just got the name Little Christmas or Old Christmas because 25 December in the Julian calendar used to be 6 January by the Gregorian calendar before 1900. But it's not really the case that the Amish celebrate Christmas on 6 January; even the cited article says they observe Christmas on the Gregorian 25 December. 6 January is another celebration, of the Epiphany. It's not an alternative date for Christmas, except for the Armenians. We should remove this entry from the list. Richard75 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Then there's this source, an Anabaptist website, which says that 6 January is about Epiphany and "we’ve likely forgotten about Christmas by the 6th of January." Richard75 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. Richard75 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do we celebrate Christmas

Why do we celebrate Christmas 27.63.182.75 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking for a rationale for why it is done, that is explained in the first sentence: "an annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ". If you are asking for more detail than that to be added, it may be a difficult task. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 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)

No. They are totally unrelated events, that just happen to occur close to one one another at present. New Years Day depends on the current calendar system we are using. Christmas Day is a date important to Christians within that calendar system. One could easily change without the other. Christians might suddenly discover evidence of when Jesus was actually born. That would almost certainly change Christmas Day, but it wouldn't change New Years Day. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am open to being proven wrong via reliable sources, but (1) proximity does not mean relatedness- after all, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa and several others overlap yet are unrelated except for being holidays; (2) see (1), (3) I am aware of many countries using vague holiday themes around New Years', but none specifically related to Christmas except perhaps in cases of convenience or to avoid redecorating expense. Frankly, I think you are conflating Christmas with a more generic "holiday season" here, and if one does that, other holidays also occurring during the same season also need listed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:00, 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 still appears to be a conflation of Christmas with a generic "holiday season". The first article explicitly states that "Turkish people do not celebrate Christmas as such". Decorations and characters typically associated with Christmas in the west are merely reappropriated for New Years' there. The second article states "Soviet leaders linked the tree not to religious Christmas celebrations, but to a secular new year". And so on. But really, the issue is that we must scope what "related to" means. One could argue Christmas is not just "related to" New Years', but also Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, everything on the Christian calendar (Easter, Ascension, ...), and much more. Or, one could argue Christmas is only related to holidays that are direct derivations of it (or vice versa), celebrated on the same day (or one day before/after), etc.
I would propose, as a litmus test, that "related to" holidays are those that would not exist without the religious Christmas event, and are celebrated roughly the same day as Christmas. All the holidays currently listed (except, perhaps, Yule) pass this test. New Years' does not. I am open to suggestions on this proposal. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
"One could argue" Based on what sources? We can not reach conclusions which are not supported by any sources. That is Wikipedia's definition of "original research". Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Not OR. Rather, the purpose of “one could argue” is to illustrate the issue of not having a reliable definition. We need to define what “related to” means before we can supply a list of “related to” holidays. Otherwise the definition can vary widely as I laid out, and cause debates like the present one. If you are aware of any RS anywhere that explicitly states what “related to” should mean in this context, then feel free to share it as it’s what we should use. Otherwise we have a scoping problem. My proposal is intended only in lieu of such an RS. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
New Year is historically and practically quite unrelated to Christmas, except in the trivial sense of occurring a week or so later in some countries. The fact that many countries celebrate both within an extended period known for example as "the holiday season" (US) or "the Christmas holidays" (UK), does not mean that they should be linked in an inbox, any more than the UK's Guy Fawkes Night should be linked to the entirely separate but close Halloween. I agree with the arguments of HiLo48 and Jtrevor99. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Religious exclusivity

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)

Specify exactly where your contested content is, otherwise it's just an unsubstantiated and unhelpful rant. Also, provide reliable sources for your claims. For example, I could counter that the introductory paragraph already acknowledges that Christmas is celebrated "culturally by many non-Christians", and subsequent intro paragraphs go into detail about the corresponding winter solstice date on the Roman calendar and the pre-Christian themes and origins of various customs. Every definition in reliable sources that you can find will almost surely define Christmas succinctly and foremost as the commemoration of the birth of Christ, so that is what we should indeed reflect. Remember that we are a worldwide encyclopedia, and need to put forth the definitions and descriptions of the nature of Christmas that are shared around the world. The "secular celebration of giving and community" may be true of some circles, communities, and nations (i.e. USA), but not of others (i.e. Armenia, Russia). But the "religious commemoration of Jesus Christ's birth" is a universally applicable definition of Christmas.
As for the statement that "Christmas originally was pagan and Roman", that's just untrue. The holiday of Christmas has always been Christian, you seem to be conflating the falsity that "Christmas originally was pagan and Roman" with the fact that Christmas absorbed (whether intentionally or inadvertently) many traditions from concurrent and otherwise unrelated holidays. Those two statements don't equate to the same thing. Pagans and Romans never had a celebration called Christmas, nor was there ever any one pagan and/or prechristian Roman celebration that encompassed all the pre-Christian customs that Christmas presently does. Describing Christmas as what it is, a holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, doesn't insinuate that everything about Christmas is Christian or that anyone celebrating it must be Christian, and in fact our article already explains all of this in detail. If you have specific concerns, or specific proposals, present them. Otherwise, asking for a vague "investigation" isn't going to accomplish anything.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

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)

bias in discussion of origins of christmas

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

[copyvio redacted] [link redacted] Shurahbeelhamid (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: @Shurahbeelhamid: I'm redacting the blogspot link you cited as a source. More importantly, this information is out of scope for this article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I've also had to redact the text about the 2022 bomb cyclone because of a copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

"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

  1. ^ Haas, Mindi. "A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHRISTMAS". Voice&Vision. Voice & Vision Inc. Retrieved 12/25/2022. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ Nissenbaum, Stephen (1997). The Battle for Christmas: A Cultural History of America's Most Cherished Holiday (First ed.). New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 400. ISBN 0307760227, 9780307760227. Retrieved 12/25/2022. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@RealAspects: Whether or not one agrees with it, it's very clear what @ERobayoCa is requesting: (1) change the section title "History" to "Origin of Christmas"; (2) add the remainder of the text as a paragraph in that section. The Cite problems are due to: (a) two ISBNs being given in the same parm with a comma&space between (this should be a pipe "|"); (b) the access-dates being given as mm/dd/yyyy instead of yyyy-mm-dd. – •Raven  .talk 04:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

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)

P.S. I bring up the quotation because that was written roughly 60 years before the feast of Sol Invictus was created. The date of Christmas did not copy Sol Invictus. Correlation does not mean causation. Based on the chronology, one could argue that Sol Invictus copied Christmas. GoatCheese1 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
We should also note that December 25, BC 1, puts Jesus's brit milah, i.e. his circumcision, and likely naming and recognition in the Jewish community) on January 1, 1 AD. I found a source that pointed out this significance several years ago but cannot find it now. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammar fix needed

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))

Done, thank you. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

calculation method

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christmas/Archive_8&oldid=1235570786"