Talk:Christmas/Archive 2

message: I think it'd be great if we could get this article to FA status again, and have it featured on the main page on December 25, 2006. Come on you've got to love that. Definitely doable. -- Alfakim --  talk  12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the principles who shepherded this to FA last year, although they didn't front page it on 12/25. Tho' I've rv'd countless bogus edits since then, I wasn't aware until now that it had been yanked from the FA list. Good luck. Yuck-a-pucks will come out of the woodwork to mess with your best efforts. Sfahey 19:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work to reach FA again

message: I'd like to comment on the recent reverts made by User:Clinkophonist, allegedly because I am "Catholic," (which I am not). If you look at the old comments in the archive on this material, it is uniformly negative, which is what inspired me to rewrite it. It is not scholarly or referenced. It connects Christmas to almost everything except Christianity. Finally, the revert cuts the nativity section in half. Somehow, I imagined that the nativity was more relevant to Christmas than Saturn or Celtic gods.Kauffner 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: Shouldn't the references to the Christ start with upper case letters, i.e. His or He instead of his or he.
:No, that is strictly a Christian point of view. Though his name, "Jesus" and the title "Christ" are capitalized (as are "God", "Allah", "Buddha", "the Catholic Church", and other religious elements), the possessive "his" and "he" are not to be capitalized to ensure a NPOV concerning Jesus' divinity. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: his or His?

message: No offense people, what what on earth could make anyone think this is npov?
The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel.
I'm pulling those two words for obvious reasons. There is no consensus on the issue of the historicity of Daniel, but 1). that's over the top, and 2:)those kinds of statements should be in Daniel itself, not as epithets to links.
Thanatosimii 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think there is any serious question as to the fact that Daniel is unhistorical. Who was king when and in what order is all messed up –- and the kings are central figures in the story.  Without some attempt to evaluate the Bible as a source, the passage reads like a sermon. How about "historically doubtful"? If you take Matthew and Daniel at face value, the logical conclusion is that magi were a kind of professional association in Babylon that had a continuous history going back to Daniel -- a bit unlikely to say the least.Kauffner 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt matter, wildly unhistorical is completely POV, regardless of how unhistorical Daniel might or might not be. Its an opinion, and it needs to be attributed; original research is not permitted. Clinkophonist 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wildly unhistorical"? 

message: How come there is no separate section on the pagan historical origin of Christmas?! At least the very serious controversy!
see    -- and many other! __Maysara 09:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of paragraphs about the theory that Christmas evolved from Mithras celebrations and the Sol Invictus festival. There also stuff about how Yule and Saturnalia influenced Christmas. There's a hundred theories and they can't all be covered. Christmas is by definition a Christian holiday. Of course it has been influenced by pagan traditions. But I don't the Christian vs pagan framework is a useful way to look at the issue.Kauffner 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Hoo (!) said anything about "Christian vs pagan framework" frameworking framework?! And HOOOO said anything about covering all hundred theories?! What I suggested was a separate section about the very FACT that the Christmas is precisely NOT by definition a christian holiday, since it certainly has a non-christian practice, religious or else, as its very origin. Now THIS, must be a very useful way, to look at the issue(.) I have already given some linkez ... [...influenced} {!]Maysara 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The salient facts about Mithras, Saturnalia, Yule, Sol Invictus, and the rest are already in the article. Readers are free to come to their own conclusions -- even to conclude that Christmas isn't Christian. Once you finish here can you check the the article on the papacy. I think it might be missing a section: "The Pope: Is he Catholic?"Kauffner 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It is quite extremely superstitious, to conclude that, Holidays, like Popes, do posses a volition! Give me a break! (in other words; popes can choose their identity. Holidays, NOT!) __Maysara 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: and the '''origin''' of Christmas .. WHERE?!

message: The comment in the nativity section that Luke and Matthew "record entirely different nativity stories" seems not entirely accurate.  There are details in one that the other does not mention, and vice versa, but that does not make them "entirely different." --LawrenceTrevallion 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity 

message: Sometime in May 2006, the intro sentence was changed from "...celebrates the birth of Jesus" to "...celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ". Per Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, religious honorifics are generally omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations. Thus Wikipedia typically does not use titles such as "Jesus Christ" or "Prophet Muhammad". This article presents a unique situation, however, in that the subject of the article is clearly related to Jesus' religious title. Perhaps we could come up with a solution that addresses this while still maintaining adherance to the neutral point of view policy. For example, perhaps we could edit the first sentence to say "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, claimed to be the "Christ" or Messiah by his followers." What are other people's thoughts on this? Kaldari 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this specifically cited somewhere or is this an interpretation? --Elliskev 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific issue of religious titles is addressed in the Manual of Style (see first link above). The Manual of Style is not official policy, however, and thus not enforcable. The NPOV policy, however, which is enforcable, states that subjects must be presented without bias, "including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others." This has usually been interpreted to mean that religious honorifics should be avoided. This is actually a much bigger issue for Islamic subjects, where extensive honorifics are the norm, e.g. "Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)" rather than just "Muhammad". Kaldari 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a few pages of debate on whether or not the term "Jesus Christ" is POV here:. The outcome of that debate was to rename the Jesus Christ article to just Jesus. Personally, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another, but I think we should try to be consistant at least. Kaldari 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Jesus Christ" 

message: Of course the article is too long and needs some trimming. But to drop the sections on the nativity, star of Bethlehem, and the year of Christ's birth while leaving the sections on decorations and economics strikes me as an effort to deChristianize the holiday. The secular aspects of the holiday are completely different depending on time period and country. It's Christ and Christianity that are the core of the holiday and what makes Christmas Christmas. If the nativity isn't part of the "actual holiday," what is?
On the issue of these subjects being covered elsewhere: That's par for the course in Wikipedia. Christmas is a high profile article. To let some relatively obscure article drive it's content is to let the tail wag the dog.Kauffner 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the nativity has never been removed as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you're referring to about the nativity not being part of the "actual holiday"? Who said that? As for the other two sections, they seem only tangentally related to Christmas. I would much rather be able to follow a link to read about the Star of Bethlehem or the debate about the year Jesus was born, rather than having to scroll through it all here. We might as well have sections on Mistletoe and the Virgin Mary if we're going to include such semi-related material. Kaldari 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ and Christmas

message: I reworked the following paragraph:
As Constantine ended persecution, Christians began to debate the nature of Christ. Some argued that he was the divine word made flesh (see John 1:14), others that he was born human and infused with the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (see Mark 1:9-11).
The last sentence sounds like Adoptionism rather than Arianism.  While I am not very familiar with the specifics of Arian theology, I do not believe that sentence adequately reflects their theology since they thought Christ was a created being less than God.  If I am incorrect, please change it back and I apologize.  LawrenceTrevallion 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage is not about Arianism or adoptionism. Christmas was created post-Nicene Council, so trinitarian issue was already resolved. It refers to the debate between the schools of theology in Alexandria (John, Christ as logos) and Antioch (Mark, Jesus born human). The Antioch view is the basis for the Nestorian heresy that evolved somewhat later. We don't have documentation concerning why Christmas was declared a feast day, but this was Christianity's the hot button issue at the time.Kauffner 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arianism

message: This sentence needs a citation:
A feast celebrating Christ's birth gave the church an opportunity to promote the intermediate view that Christ was divine from the time of his incarnation.
This is a theory and needs some citation.  I will leave the sentence for now.  LawrenceTrevallion 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoting a Christology

message: Is there an Xmas background you can use on your userpage? 49Untouchable 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xmas Background 

message: -if not already included
:Gift Giving
It is the emphasis on gift-giving (allegedly derived from St. Nicholas/Santa Claus) that makes it so important economically. Stores hire extra staff to help buyers find the things they want in the store. The emphasis on shopping for the right gift, and getting gifts for all who will gift you (and spending the "right amount"), and getting it all done on time, while also getting out those Xmas cards also increases stress levels (study can be cited) & many people say they need a holiday from the holiday. Following the holiday, many gifts are returned to the stores, though many stores have a policy that they will not accept returns the first few days. Stores sell items at reduced prices after Christmas, enticing people to buy some of the things that they wanted but did not receive as gifts.
:Family Gatherings
Many people  travel great distances to gather with other family members. Airplanes are full, & airfares rise over the holidays. While many people are happy to visit with family, many couples also feel obliged not to play favorites in the amount of time spent visiting parents on opposite sides of the family. Families gather for large meals & exchanging gifts.
:Holiday Lights
Many lighting decorations are sold, with newly invented ones replacing older ones every few years. Even many non-Christians decorate their house with lights to cheer the long winter nights. People go on outings just to see the lighted displays in plazas, stores, and at other homes.
:Time Off
Most schools & colleges close from before Dec 25 until after Jan 1 - some for 2 weeks or more. Besides being closed on Dec 25 & Jan 1, many offices close early on Christmas Eve & on New Years's Eve, and often close or have reduced hours on other days between the 2 holidays. 
--JimWae 07:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aspects to add 

message: Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Aside from its religious significance, the holiday has gradually adopted secular customs as well, including ostentatious festive decorations, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and the exchange of presents among family and friends, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year due to the increase in consumer spending. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse."Christmas", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because the Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).
While most Christians observe Christmas on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to reflect the actual birthdate of Jesus. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later.
The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to the dominance of Christianity as the largest world religion, with approximately 2 billion adherentsReligions by Adherents Adherents.com. and also due to the holiday's status as a winter festival in the Northern Hemisphere. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). Other notable customs include the closure of most businesses and schools during the holiday season, the singing of Christmas carols, intricate light displays and family gatherings. However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practised, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.
:Overall a good opening, but I have one suggestion. I think "Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later." should come right after "Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus." at the very beginning, to balance the introduction's mention of Christmas's religious and secular customs.— OLP 1999 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little maxim I use on the Pedia to keep sane is that the best compromise is one in which no-one is fully satisfied. It is clear that some feel the lead should give the Christian aspects more prominence, while others would want even less attention devoted to this and prefer the secular aspects to be emphasised more. In the spirit of wikilove/compromise/etc, would most of you be happy with the latest proposal? Brisvegas 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to discuss the secular vs religious issue in the first graph. Just give the reasons for holiday (birth of Jesus, winter celebration) and describe how it is celebrated (nativity, gift-giving, Christmas trees, time off from work, time spent with family, and Santa Claus).Kauffner 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Raine Maida's advice, I posted this on Request for Comments page.  Hopefully we can come to a resolution that everyone can live with.MightyAtom 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for responding to the RFC.  What do you think of this compromise?
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse.[1] It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation 
for Christ (Χριστός).
MightyAtom 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Chistmas gift-giving is derived from a pagan holiday? The American gift-giving tradition is transferred from the Dutch St. Nicholas celebration (Dec. 6), which was brought to the US by Dutch settlers in New York.Kauffner 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most researches on the history of Christmas trace the tradition of presents during the Winter Soltice to the Roman Feast of Kalends, first branches of an evergreen tree and then later cakes and honey.MightyAtom 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this? 

message: In response to the RFC, I definitely agree that Christmas is not 'just' a Christian holiday.  It certainly is a Christian holiday, it certainly is a holiday with a Christian history, but lots of people around the world celebrate it with little or no religious motivation.  
The clearest evidence of this is that come Christmas time, an ever-increaing portion of the discourse seems to revolve around the perceived increasing Secularization of Christmas.  I know there's been a judicial ruling or two that held that Christmas is a secular holiday (obviously, not to the exclusion if it ALSO being a Christian holiday). 
To me, the way to handle might be to include a paragraph or two explicitly talking about the debate about whether christmas as christian-vs-secular holiday.  
--Alecmconroy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding to the RFC.  What do you think of this compromise?
Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse.[1] It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation 
for Christ (Χριστός).
MightyAtom 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Chistmas gift-giving is derived from a pagan holiday? The American gift-giving tradition is transferred from the Dutch St. Nicholas celebration (Dec. 6), which was brought to the US by Dutch settlers in New York.Kauffner 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most researches on the history of Christmas trace the tradition of presents during the Winter Soltice to the Roman Feast of Kalends, first branches of an evergreen tree and then later cakes and honey.MightyAtom 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Requested Comment

message: Just as a little background on this, maybe take a look at The History Channels "History of Christmas."
http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas
MightyAtom 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a look?

message: Here in the UK it is traditional to eat turkey on Christmas, not ham. There is no mention of this in the article. I find it interesting that the Germanic peoples apparently ate ham and that this has survived in America but not the UK. It would be interesting to see where the tradition of turkeys came from.--Jcvamp 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some do eat turkey on Christmas, but I think for most Americans turkey is the traditional food of Thanksgiving, which happens in the previous month.  MightyAtom 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Maybe it was just cheaper?  Looking forward to seeing your research.MightyAtom 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  There is some information at http://www.uttertrivia.com/christmasturkey.php about why we eat turkey at Christmas in the UK (it's reliability could be questionable, however, but it's as good a source as any).  It was in the 16th Century when turkey was first imported from America.  Eating swans for Christmas lunch seems highly unlikely at any time in history, since the hunting of swans - the property of the monarch and therefore, treason - would have been punishable by beheading.--IanUK 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the turkey? 

message: In the section called 'Nativity' one part reads 'As they travel to Bethleham, the magi follow a star'. Surely this should be Bethlehem?--Jcvamp 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this has been fixed. For simple spelling errors, you should be able to just go ahead and correct them without discussion, I think! MightyAtom 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't feel bad about that.  If you make a mistake, it's easily undone!  Powers T 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bethleham? 

message: I feel like Charlie Brown writing this...  and I'm not sure how or even if it should be worked in, but it seems in the past 10 years or so, everything has to have a Christmas edition.  Most tv shows have "The Christmas Episode".  It seems every top40 star has to come out with their annual Christmas song.  Every candy has to have it's special packaging, etc...   It's as if corporations are waking up to the fact that people like xmas, people get sentimental about it, and that if they make a special widget or whatever, their sales go up even more.   I guess it's hard to say who should be able to have a special or not - I'm quite fond of the old McDonald commercials w/ Ronald helping the one kid who can't ice skate...so whose to say that Skittles can't have a Christmas (er... Happy Holidays) commercial as well.  But it just seems like too much of a bombardment and it has lost the specialness of it.
Like the man said "Christmas has become too commercial."   Guess I'm just getting old!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon (talk • contribs) .
:Ha! I think that complaining that "Christmas has become too commercial" is a tradition in and of itself, passed down generation to generation!  In 1850 Harriet Beacher Stowe wrote a story where one of the characters complains that Christmas has become too commercial, not like when she was a child. :P MightyAtom 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrismas in the arts... 

message: Per MOS Wikilinks I am going to begin removing the redundant and extraneous hyperlinks. In general, A word should only be linked the first time it is used, and we should only add links when they would provide useful info to the reader about the subject of the article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Links

message: On the show "The Boondocks" Huey stated in the christmas episode that christmas was originally a pagan holiday where men would give each other gifts and the partying usually got so out of hand that they erupted into gay orgies, and the protestant church banned the holiday until 1820.  Is any of this true?
:The first few words are true "...christmas was originally a pagan holiday...", but the bit about gay orgies is utter nonsense. I suspect that "The Boondocks" may not meet WP's criterion for a reliable source :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Boondocks factuality 

message: This section seems to be totally redundant. There is almost nothng in here that isn't repeated in one or more sections elsewhere. Clearly some of the excess needs to be trimmed. Would it be better to trim the redundant content from other sections, or could we just remove this one entirely? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other dates of celebration

message: NOTE: The Article size guidelines recommend that an article shouldn't normally exceed approximately 32kb. Since this one is currently 44kb, it looks like we need to trim quite a bit; nearly 1/4 of the total. It doesn't need to be exactly 32kb, but it's clearly too long, and trimming just a few words from each section won't be enough. I'm going to start by removing the "Other dates" section as I suggested above. Almost all the material in there appears earlier in the article as well. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it down to 37kb now! Keep up the good work everyone! MightyAtom 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After some brilliant editing by MightyAtom, and some blatant butchery on my own part, this article is now 33kb, a near-perfect size. At this point we should carefully review any new material added to the article with an eye towards whether or not it constitutes a significant improvement. More rewrite and reformatting is probably still in order, but it would be easy for the length to get out of hand again if we're not careful. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long, part 2

message: The "lead image" (the first one readers see after the infobox) is currently the somewhat dreary "Catacombs" painting. "Adorazion del Bambino", now in the Nativity section, seems like a much stronger visual representation of the birth of Jesus and the Christian origins of the holiday. Also, in terms of aesthetics, "Adorazion" is probably one of the better images in the article overall. Would it make sense to move it into the lead position? IMHO it would give the article a more immediate visual appeal. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the lead image should be changed, although I think that the image of the Christmas tree would be a better lead image.  In general, the Christmas Tree is used as a symbol for Christmas, such as on calenders, or in the movie Nightmare before Christmas, where the door to Christmastown was a tree.  What do you think? MightyAtom 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right the Christmas Tree is more universal, hence might be a better lead. In that case, "Adorazion" is still perfect in Nativity. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved the tree to the top, but I'm not sure the positioning is quite right. Let me know what you think, or just play around with it yourself. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that looks good in the infobox. I really like the new streamlined "Nativity" section too. This is looking better :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that an image of a Christmas tree is a more universal image. Decorating a Christmas tree is practice which occurs in both Christian and non-Christian observance of the holiday. -Severa  (!!!) 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Image

message: IMO, the new "Pre-Christian Origins of holiday" section is a lot of nonsense. It doesn't include a single reference to support the arguement that Christmas originated with any of the pagan holidays mentioned. Of course, it's easy enough to get references for pretty much any theory you want. But the story of the holiday as it was given earlier was referenced to articles published in a historian's magazine. Saturnalia was Dec. 17-22, so it can't used to explain the choice of a Dec. 25 date. I also think its sleazy that the length issue has been used as an excuse to pull the bulk of the Christian-oriented text and images, while actually adding pagan-oriented material. An unsourced paragraph about how cruelly Constantius treated Mithras followers? What a joke! Christmas is Christian holiday. Saturnalia and Mithras have their own articles.Kauffner 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kauffner, I noticed that you were a primary contributor to the earlier "History" and "Nativity" sections of the article, and I'm sorry that you feel your work was gutted. I can certainly sympathize because I've had a similar experience. Please try to understand that we are attempting to present a fair and balanced article which provides factual material about the entire history, not just its Christian origins. Since you have a different view of what material should be included, I hope that you'll work with us to produce a better article. Keep in mind however, that if we were to implement the logic that Mithras and Saturnalia shouldn't be mentioned because they ahve their own articles, we would also then remove the entire Nativity section (and others) for the same reason. It's actually standard practice to mention related topics briefly, while providing links to them for further reading, which is exactly what we've done. While it can be hard to see other contributors edit your work, I think that User:MightyAtom did an excellent job providing a concise and properly NPOV rewrite of the Nativity section. Other editors have also tried to claim that "Christmas is a Christian holiday", but this is clearly contradicted by the fact that Christmas is celebrated by tens of millions of non-christians. This makes it especially important for us to present all the material in a neutral manner. I do hope that you'll work with us to continue improving this article. Thanks for your input. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that the section is full of controversial statements no one has referenced. The Britannica article on Christmas does not even mention Saturnalia. The Sol Invictus festival is called "one widespread explanation." Saturnalia was an Italian holiday while the Sol Invictus festival was an empire-wide national day, so they are different holidays even if some people were celebrating both at the same time. (Besides, the Romans had something like 160 holidays a year, so the fact there were pagan holidays on or around the same date as Christmas is not necessarily significant.) The earlier version on this article had material about Mithras' birthday and Saturnalia so there is no question of censorship. But I don't think that there is any way to justify the unsource claims that these holidays were definately the origin of Christmas. It is Christ and Christianity that makes Christmas Christmas. July 4 can be described as America's national day even through other people (notably Danes) celebrate it as well. As for the nativity section, it now has two sentances about the nativity before it moves on to fluff about decorations and caroling. This means we now have more about Saturnalia (not to mention Mithras) than we do about the nativity. Finally, I was astonished to discover that all references to bruma and to the winter solstice have been removed from the article.Kauffner 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Yikes! I'm not sure how bruma and Winter Solstice got written out. Between multiple editors working at the same time, and many reverts due to vandalism, that might well have been unintentional. Thanks for pointing it out. Regarding the majority of this section, I agree that it is badly in need of cites to support its assertions. I started to search for some earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I do think that once properly cited, the material is relevant. Many people are unfamiliar with the pre-Christian history of the holiday, and it certainly merits inclusion. Regarding what seems to be one of your general concerns, no one has objected to refering to Christmas as a Christian holiday. What needs to be acknowledged in the article is the fact that a huge number of non-christians celebrate Christmas too. Just because they're not Christians doesn't mean they don't celebrate the holiday. In the spirit of working together to improve the article, would you prefer if we have discussion on the talkpage before significant changes are made? MightyAtom and I were the only ones discussing things earlier, and since we were in general agreement it was a somewhat lopsided debate :)
 
As far as references go, that link to "Christian History and Biography" magazine is a pretty solid reference for that section, discussing the appropriate of the date of Mithras/Sol Invictus's birthday, as well as customs transfered over from Saturnalia.  I am more than happy to see that section re-written (I didn't write it myself.  The person who did wrote it with some pretty heavy-handed POV, that I tried to tone down in the editing).  The timeline should definitely go chronological though.  MightyAtom 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the chronology and made several small edits to that effect before it was split into sections. I didn't mean to suggest replacing the cite that we've got, just to add a couple more. The first few I found weren't as strong, more like personal essays, so I didn't take them. There's definitely less POV than there was; since Kauffner has reservations about this section, let's see if he has some specific suggestions. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Christian origin

message: I've recently learned more about article length from Severa, a long-time editor with experience on the subject. There is an exception to Wikipedia:Article size for "top-tier articles", and apparently Christmas qualifies as such (ie, it is a parent-article with many children). Instead of a 32kb limit then, the situation is more open-ended. There are several examples of top-tier articles that run 60kb to 80kb+. This means we actually have a lot of freedom to expand coverage of existing sections, and possibly add new sections. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long, part 3

message: The link to this states that some Senagalese celebrate Chrsitmas, so it is true that even if they do this, they would be an extreme minority. The article however states -
'"Officially, we Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. But the Catholics are our neighbors. So, we all celebrate all the religious holidays. We share the same houses, even graveyards. It has been the same for years," says shopkeeper El Hadj Diop sitting before his African antique store."' That makes it clear that even the Senegalese don't accept it as part of Islam, so maybe you can quote that Senagalese celebrate Christmas, but it should not be stated that any Muslims celebrate Chrsitmas as it is not true. The Islamic ruling on celebrating Christmas is clear, here is a link to two fatawa on the topic -  Some scholars declare that anyone who does so has left the religion, so it is a major matter that is not taken lightly. This is out of our respect and love for Jesus peace be upon him, not out of anger. The reference should be dedelted as it is misleading and not true.Mecca Cola 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article might say that Christmas is celebrated by Muslims in Senegal, but not one Muslim I know in the whole of Senegal or any Senegalese ex-pat has ever celebrated Christmas in their life. Sure maybe 1 or 2 villages may, but on the whole it is unknown. I challenge anyone to bring a decent article or even a single Senegalese Muslim claiming that it is widespread and accepted. The fact is that Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. If 1 or 2 people count then we should also state in the Eid thread that Christians and Buddhists celebrate it too as I know many of them who celebrate it with us and come to the Eiid gatherings, prayers and festivals. Here are a few websites which counter that article -      You will see that even though a minority of Muslims may do this out of ignorance, we can't say that Muslims celebrate it as it is not a part of Islam at all. UIts like saying Muslims believe in good luck charms, simply because many Turks have them, yet they have nothing to do with Islam. When the Senegalese Muslims do this and claim it as part of their religion (Islam) then maybe you can claim it, however until then all we have is a group of Senegalese doing it, not Muslims.Mecca Cola 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims & Christmas 

message: Why do radio stations play X-mas music 1 month before needed? They drive me nuts! -71.224.19.29 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio stations