Talk:Christmas/Archive 6

message: I just wanted to cange the image deleted (?) with equivalent :Image:Adorazione del Bambino - Beato Angelico.jpg --Sailko (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas...and so I will: Merry Christmas to all! Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi vobiscum, amen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.251.55 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy festival and a joyful new year of the Common era!---Steven Evens (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of wishing you a Merry Christmas is self-explanatory. It might not be 'political' --- but it is correct. And anyways...there is always so much vitriol on Wiki that a little friendliness couldn't hurt, now could it? --137.186.251.55 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merry Christmas 

message: :It was previously unknown, there is nothing about Christmas in the Bible.
:When the Roman Emperor decreed Christianity the official Imperial religion ca. 300, he re-branded the traditional Roman solstice party.
:Santa Claus and Rudolph the Brown-nosed reindeer were invented much later.
:Ho ho ho!!! Fourtildas (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xmas was invented in 300 AD 

message: I would just like to mention that the picture description about the Slovenian Santa is wrong:
The name Ded Moroz is Russian, it's just not written in the Russian alphabet. In Slovenia it is Dedek Mraz.
And translation  will be Grandfather of Frost, not father.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpykc (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of the Game 

message: (This is my first time commenting so I am sorry if it's wrong)
I thought I should just say that almost everyone in Germany celebrates the kristkind or Christkind and not just in the South. I could try to edit it myself although it is protected or whatever, but I thought I should just point it out to any administrators if any of them should read this.
84.68.13.231 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa 

message: I would like to suggest this external link to the above discussion:
*Catholic Encyclopedia: Christmas
I found it helpful, and not offensive at all. Merry Christmas!AMC0712 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a very helpful resource.  But this brings up a problem which particularly touches on this Wiki article.  For obvious reasons, Wiki posters have a bias towards resources easily accessible on line.  But the vast majority of historical research is still available only in book form (and likely to be for many years, if you ask me).  Your flagging of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which must be one the most hevily referenced resources in Wiki, makes the point.  It IS a great resource, but one of limited scope and focus.  A number of historians, anthropoligists, and related scholars have done a great deal of work to unearth information about Christmas through the centuries wholly beyond the narrow scope of the CE.  Since the Wiki Christmas entry consists almost entirely of references found on-line, we lose much of the mass of human knowledge assembled about the cultural importance of Christmas and the changes wrought by evolving religious, economic, and political relationships, all of which can only be found in the books.  Instead we get all kinds of detail about early church debates on the date of Christ's birth and isolated revisionist essays arguing against any borrowings from the Saturnalia.  Why?  Because that information is easily available and the main body of research is not. TheCormac (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Helpful External Link 

message: The "Constantinian Origins" section (section 2.2.1 as of this writing) is a mess.  Poor grammar, punctuation, and capitalization; redundant information (multiple editors?); etc., to the point that the section is barely readable.  I don't want to touch it because I don't have the requisite information, but it needs attention from someone who does have the information and is capable of writing a coherent English sentence. JBJD (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also entirely factually wrong -- Christmas was not celebrated on this date at that time.  Roger Pearse 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Constantinian Origins" section a mess 

message: Am I alone in this or does anyone else think the infobox picture is too busy?  The individual elements are too small to even tell what is going on.  Also, the licensing is problematic - several of the constituent images are GFDL and one is CC - they aren't mixable.  I really think a single picture of a Christmas tree, a crop of :Image:Happy new year 06463.jpg, or a manger scene would look nicer. --B (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, and there you have hit on the problem!  That picture was a compromise.  There used to be a single picture of a Christmas Tree, but some folks didn't like that fact that the main picture wasn't religious, and others didn't want a Jesus picture as the main picture, and.....we have the busy compromise.MightyAtom (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is hideously bad, though, and has the side effect of being a copyright violation that will be deleted from Commons as soon as anyone gets around to nominating it. Maybe a work of art could be used - perhaps :Image:Worship of the shepherds by bronzino.jpg?  It would satisfy the desire to have a religious image and would have more encyclopedic value than a random conglomeration of unidentifiable images. --B (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: There is a minor mistake using the wrong version of sun as in sun god i wanted to edited but couldn't. Geeko8800gtx (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor mistake 

message: I dont really think that this is necessary as it impolies that the information will be changing because of the passing of christmas which it isnt, not much use otherwise. 81.129.23.206 (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event tag 

message: I don't know if this is a real encyclopedia or a christian website... since when is christmas a celebration of the birth of jesus? since 2000 years ago, what about before that? when the egyptions were celebrating the birth of :
HORUS ( egypt Dec 25th, 3000 BC ) ..
Attis ( greece Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) .. 
Mithra ( Persia Dec 25th, 1200 BC ) ..
Krishna ( india Dec 25th, 900 BC ) ..
Dionysus ( greece Dec 25th, 500 BC ) ..
::: Would you please document any evidence of any of these assertions?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.233.70 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please go away.–Steven Evens (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be polite, Steve. the opening sentence is very biased if it only says Christmas celebrates Christ's birth. It's also a winter celebration. Everybody knows that, even me, and I'm a Christian. Wrad (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop reverting valid information, Steve. All you have to do is read the article and you will see that Christmas has just as much to do with Winter Solstice as it does with Christ. Anyone who's read even a tiny bit into the subject knows that. Wrad (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding, Christmas itself is a celebration of Christ's birth, but it is adopted from other holidays and celebrations. Cultures that celebrated the winter solstice were not celebrating Christmas- they were celebrating the winter solstice. Similarly, we don't introduce Easter as a celebration of the spring equinox.-Wafulz (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Wafulz. Previous pagan holiday aspects have definitely been greatly incorporated into Christmas, but this does not change the definition of the holiday, Christmas. If we were to write an article on Saturnalia, or Yule, or Natalis Sol Invictus, things would be different. Irregardless of the varying personal celebrations of Christmas, the definition remains unchanged.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Christmas does not celebrate the coming of the winter solstice. If you believe this, that's your belief. We need reliable sources if we're going to put it here.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Steve. As defined in reliable sources, Christmas is Jesus' birthday. Unless there are Church documents stating that the purpose of Christmas was to celebrate the coming of winter, then there's not much of a case.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention, that if Christmas celebrated "the coming of the winter solstice", as per Wrad, it would need to fall before December 20, as the winter solstice occurs between Dec. 20–23.—Steven Evens (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look at it, I can see that it's all right the way it is. Wrad (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wafulz, there is no reliable source saying December 25th is Jesus's birthday. In fact, everyone knows it isn't. It's unclear as to the exact day, but every expert on the subject has said that 12/25 is almost certainly not. The origin of the date was in old celebrations of the winter solstice. The fact that today we know the solstice is not 12/25 is irrelevant. Enigmaman (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definitely reliable sources that Christmas is a holiday celebrating the nativity of Jesus, which was the issue here. We know Jesus was not born on December 25, but we also know that Christmas was a holiday created by the Catholic church as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, irregardless of varying personal interpretations and celebrations, or issues of pagan syncretization.—Steven Evens (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  christmas is?? 

message: The article currently states, "[I]n the Greek Orthodox world [Christmas] is in early January." The Website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (which uses the "new" calendar) indicates that the nativity of Jesus Christ is observed on December 25. Yes, I realize that is just one archdiocese but I doubt that it's unique. --anon70.23.139.160 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then revert it and provide your reference. Be bold.—Steven Evens (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed Greek to Russian because here in Russia we still celebrate the Christmas on January, 7 while Greek Orthodox church does it on December, 25 now (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Julian_Calendar#From_Julian_to_Gregorian). Illarionov (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other Eastern Orthodox churches (some of them Greek Orthodox) that use the Julian calendar as well. This part should be rewritten to reflect this, possibly with the inclusion of a link to the appropriate Wikipedia article. (I don't have the time to do this.) --anon70.23.146.237 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article to which you provide a link also says that some Eastern Catholic Christians use the Julian calendar. Anyway, the second and third paragraphs of the article now are redundant in part. (I am changing the heading of this section of the discussion page to make it broader. I also would like to belatedly wish a Merry Christmas to 216.166.140.107.) --anon70.23.158.110 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and the Julian Calendar [Was: Greek Orthodox world] 

message: I just wanted to point out a minor error:
On December 19, 2000, the decision of Ganulin v. United States was upheld by the 'Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals', not the 'U.S. Supreme Court'. On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the case certiorari, but this only means that the body chose not to try the case, not that it affirmed the Six District Court’s ruling.
Could anyone fix this error? Thank you!
:I added that in. Thanks for the correction. Enigmaman (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in [[Christmas controversy]] section 

message: Suggestion: "Christmas is an annual holiday that ostensibly celebrates the birth of Jesus"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and how about "St. Patrick's Day is a holiday that ostensibly celebrates Saint Patrick", and the same for Valentine's Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc... Or not.—Steven Evens (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I do not agree that this should be included wih the article, there is no need to be rude. RC-0722 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well these types of suggestions are ridiculous and ignorant, sorry if I can't help to appear rude. We celebrate getting drunk and wearing green on St. Patrick's Day a lot more than we "celebrate" the life of St. Patrick, but that doesn't change the definition of the holiday.—Steven Evens (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: These changes are not supported. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus as per the intention of the Catholic church at its creation. It is still widely celebrated as this, and there are no reliable sources to say that it is equally a secular festival celebrated on December 25, just that it has secular properties.—Steven Evens (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't accept that it's also a secular festival? OK, I can try and work with "properties". Would you accept "secular elements"? I think that would flow better.Stronimo (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we know is that it is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, whereas some celebratory properties are secular in nature, as with many other holidays with religious connotations. Many of the secular properties have been borrowed, or syncretized, from former pagan festivals, but this does not in any way make Christmas a "secular festival". The syncretization of these pagan festivals is already mentioned in the lead paragraphs. What are you proposing?—Steven Evens (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas is self-evidently a more widespread phenomenon than the birth of Christ. That's such an important element what Christmas is *today* (not when it was founded) that needs to be said in the first line. It should also include the date. The first line as it currently stands is not NPOV.Stronimo (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This line was reached as consensus over a long period of discussion in 2006. It was deemed the most NPOV option. As for the date—if you'd bother to read a further 2 sentences down the article you'd see how the varying dates of Christmas are explained. Christmas is and always has been defined as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, regardless of its Christian, pagan, or secular properties. Christmas cannot be "the celebration" of its own secular properties. It's the celebration of Jesus' birth. The secular properties are definitely important and prominent, but deserve no mention in the first sentence. First paragraph, sure, but the first sentence was reached as a consensus and you'd need to reach a new community consensus to have it changed, as per Wikipedia policy.—Steven Evens (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum for you to evangelize. The article failed a GA review in Dec 2007 because it isn't sufficiently NPOV, over-emphasizing the religious. It's time to seek a new consensus.Stronimo (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus as per its accepted definition. Mention of the secular aspects is warranted for the first paragraph, but not sentence. Unless you can have others agree with you, it should remain unchanged as per previous consensus. I agree with a change to the intro as it is somewhat flawed, but not in the way you edited it. Christmas is not a "secular festival" as per documented sources, though people who may only celebrate its secular aspects may call it this. Please provide us with your sources.—Steven Evens (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If large amounts of people are only celebrating the secular aspects would that not make it "more of a secular holiday?", just reflecting on North America and the large number of non christians and non practicing that celebrate christmas, I would think they are definately celebrating it secularly  99.247.120.178 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Vatican released this on Dec 19 2007: "The Pope acknowledged that many people make the effort to separate the Christmas celebration from the message of the Incarnation". The Pope acknowledges it, and so should this article. The Pope, of course sees it as a problem, we merely need to document it.81.86.170.157 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I've tried various edits, but every contribution has been reverted.Stronimo (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line 

message: In the Commemorating the birth of Jesus section, someone had scripted the first few Bible passages to appear in the body of the article, only instead of Bible passages it was all cap nonsense about INSANE CLOWN POSSY WOOT WOOT! I fixed.
As for the comments below on Language Bias, i suggest further grounds for removing the "some who later claimed to be Christians" wordplay. Its just redundant, in a grammatical and linguistic sort of way. Look up Christian and you wont get one definition, youll get something along the lines of multiple groups of Christians. You also dont need to say "some who claim" because its implied that if they are Christians that is because they are calling themselves that.
Eric Forest (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, and on Language bias 

message: I object to the bias in the following sentence:
"According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today."
It is not for a Wikipedia article to make a judgment on what a "true Christian" is. The cited source does not imply the "some who later claimed to be" language and stating that it does is dishonest. I would also like to note that this paragraph seems to have been lifted word-for-word from a Jehovah's Witness publication. I suggest the statement be evaluated and changed to more accurately reflect the cited source and the "some who later claimed to be Christian" phrase be replaced with something more neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.27.231 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Bias 

message: In the "Decorations"picknels section, it says large decorations such as illuminated sleighs and snowmen and outdoor lights only appear in Europe to a lesser extent than in other parts of the world. Speaking as someone from the UK, this is incorrect as nearly every house has some form of outdoor Christmas lights and large decorations. I am unable to edit the page because of its semi-protection, but I believe that part of it needs to be changed. After eight mints are a traditional snack.
I will look at it and make changes if neccesary Αδελφος (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While the phrasing hadn't included the word "only", it (evidently) could have been read as if this were implied. I've made a general attempt to broaden the possibilities, but if you know of a particular place that might deserve mention, please feel free to suggest it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: This article seems to omit a great deal of relevant information regarding worldwide secular observance practices; namely, the shift of Christmas in developed nations from a strictly religious holiday to a holiday based on a tradition of consumerism. The current article pays only a small tribute to the economic significance of the celebration, despite widespread commercialization and noteworthy analysis of such practices.
I scanned through the talk pages, and the word "consumerism" is mentioned not once, even though the increasing secularization of developed societies has rendered standard Christmas observance to be a widely practiced ritual of buying.
The consumption rituals associated with the observance of Christmas deserve some mention in the article, along with a link to the article on consumerism. Readers looking for information on typical Christmas observances should be presented with a balanced view of the modern Christmas ritual, along with links to articles explaining the social dynamics of consumerism.
This should be discussed here on the talk page before insertion, since any edits to the page without prior consensus are sure to spark controversy. Stevenm55 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree that the detail about Christmas having become a largely consumerist-driven holiday is missing sorely from the article. I think it even merits mention in the opening paragraph, because it really is one of the defining aspects of Christmas as we celebrate it today (especially in Western, secularizing countries). We're going to need some reliable sources documenting the consumerist-driven shift, with at least a few off-Internet sources being a good idea as well. I've done a minor rearrangement of the intro. paragraph already, and I think we can stick in a sentence or two about the consumerist shift either between the second and third or the third and fourth sentences. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, the history of Christmas is certainly nowhere near black-and-white. From what we know through various sources, the actual holiday named "Christmas" is the commemoration of the birth of Jesus (as sanctioned by the Catholic Church), but the  date of December 25 was likely chosen to correspond with either the winter solstice or another pagan festival from the last centuries BC or first centuries CE. There is no direct evidence to suggest that any elements from these festivals themselves were incorporated into the celebrations of Christmas from the beginning, but it seems likely, as Christian leaders of the time were very likely trying to Christianize a pagan holiday to help convert pagans of the time. But Christmas itself is not a "pagan" holiday, because it is a totally separately-named and sanctioned holiday (done so, again, by the Roman Catholic Church). As for modern (19th/20th century) commercialization, you're right, it was retailers that pushed for this and also Santa is believed to have originated in 19th century American media (as mentioned in the intro. of the article). We certainly should be incorporating more about this modern commercialization, but we can't be adding any original research to the article. This means we can't say Christmas is a pagan holiday, we can't say the modern gift-giving and other aspects were all instigated by retailers, because there are no sources to confirm this. The exact origin of Christmas gift-giving, etc., may seem obvious as having been retailer-driven, but the true origin remains disputed and thus unknown. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The so-called pagan "origin" of Christmas is only modern supposition and theorising, for which no solid evidence exists. Practically every day of the year was a pagan festival of some sort, so whatever date was chosen to celebrate Christ's birth, someone could say it was a pagan festival. The dates of Christmnas (Dec 25th) and The Annunciation (March 25th) correlate by the necessary 9 months - and this is the most likely origin of the dating. Doubtless some pagan habits of the winter season (Yule log etc) were adopted and christianised by ordinary people, but this does not make the festival a pagan one. Also the wide adoption of Christmas with very variable customs across the Christian world from Egypt to Scandinavia, Russia to Spain, indicates that there was a pure Christmas long before US shopkeepers cottoned on to it.  Xandar  23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Omission 

message: The following sentence is in the article..
:Prominent phrases in Dickens' Yultide tale, 'Bah! Humbug!', and 'Merry Christmas', entered the English language. 
This is misleading since clicking on "Merry Christmas" takes you to an article which states that the first recorded use of Merry Christmas was in 1565. Helsingann (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the article..in 1565 'Mery' meant "agreeable", something completely different to 1843 when 'Merry' meant "joyous"/"cheerful" - the context Dickens used it, hence the term had new meaning. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/merry-christmas.html Secondly, first source i looked at, Readers Digest - "Dickens popularized many aspects of Christmas... our language has been enriched by the tale.... "Bah! Humbug!" when feeling irritated or disbelieving. And the phrase "Merry Christmas!" gained wider usage after the story". http://www.readersdigest.ca/christmas/kind_christmas/burns.html
— Raf45Martinez (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading? 

message: We err to say that the Roman significance of 25 December was anything but religious.  In the first paragraph, "...may have initially been chosen to correspond with either a historical Roman festival or the winter solstice," should in no uncertain terms reference "a historical religious Roman festival."CalebPM (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical, in this context, means a festival that no longer exists, but existed at the relevant time. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious, not historical, Roman festival 

message: The article needs some serious sprucing up before Christmas this year. It is not at all comprehensive in its treatment of the festival and its celebration, and in places is poorly written and badly ordered. I've made a start by restoring the original order, with the section on the nativity coming just after etymology, and before the very lengthy historical section, which most readers will be less interested in. I've also begun to add a more comprehensive account of how it is celevbrated. The sections on decorations and Santa Claus need work too, and there needs to be a section on important worship events, and other events of the Christmas period, religious and secular.  Xandar  23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article needs some serious work, especially in the body of the article. I've tried to fix up the intro as best as possible so far, but even that needs more work. I hope we can all work together to vastly improve this article before Christmas. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprucing up 

message: The article currently says:
In addition, Father Christmas (known as Santa Claus in North America and Ireland) is a popular mythological figure in many countries, associated with the bringing of gifts for children.
Two issues to discuss
*1 According to the Father Christmas article, he was not originally a gift-bringer nor associated with children
*2 To say FC is known as Santa Claus indicates this is a different name for the same figure, when actually there are a number of differences - emphasized to diff degrees by diff people
*3 the present wording gives primacy to the name FC - suggesting the other name is somehow an alias, mistake, or misnomer.
Instead, perhaps, say something like:
: A popular mythological figure, known as Father Christmas in many countries, and as Santa Claus in North America and elsewhere, is associated with the holiday--JimWae (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That change seems fine to me. When I made that edit in my intro revamp I wasn't sure exactly how it should be worded, because although both figures have differing histories, they are essentially the same character. And since FC is the norm in more countries than Santa Claus is, I thought he chould come first. But nonetheless, your change looks fine to me. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the factor of Saint Nicholas - who doesn't currently get enough mention.  Xandar  00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I have never heard of the term Father Christmas, as I would assume all north americans haven't.  Surely more people say Santa Claus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father Christmas 

message: Haven't there been a few court cases since 1984? Isn't the standard now that such displays are OK if they incorporate other seasonal displays, but that if a level of gov't displays ONLY a creche it IS a first-amendment "establishment of religion" problem--JimWae (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly, yes on both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: There still seems to be a lot of controversy about this in the US. It needs a bit more research.  Xandar  00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity scenes and U.S. law 

message: I think we need something on the dating difference between Orthodox and Western celebrations. We need more on the economic impact of Christmas. Something on Christmas Carols. I also think we could use a short "Christmas Traditions worldwide" section to link up with the main article on that topic. On an allied idea, do we want to mention special Christmas foods? other ideas?  Xandar  00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some important points and good ideas, I encourage you to go ahead and start adding some of that. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Needed 

message: Article says oldest form is Cristes maesse (1038) but the OED gives Xpes. maessan (a1123 OE. Chron. an. 1101) and Cristes maesse (a1134 OE. Chron. an. 1127). 4 December 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.82.108 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference in the article is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a reliable source, and states 1038. We could quote both I suppose.   Xandar  02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: he was noted for the care of Children, generosity, and the giving of gifts. His feast on the 6th of November came to be celebrated in many countries by the giving of gifts. This should say "the 6th of December".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliroze (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date error 

message: This article falsely states that Christmas is on December 25th, which is true. However, for a large portion of Christians, it is on January 7th. Therefore, I think that should be included in the introduction, and the infobox. 
Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all Christians, and all Christians should be included in this page. --77.122.109.26 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We already discussed this to death in talk archives. January 7 is only celebrated because it corresponds to December 25 in the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Christians use because they reject the Gregorian calendar. Adding January 7 in the intro and the infobox will just add unnecessary confusion because it is really December 25 in the Julian calendar. All this is already clarified in the "Celebration" section. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7 only if you go by the Gregorian calendar. People within that church go by the Julian calendar, meaning they are celebrating on December 25 (of the Julian calendar that they are extrapolating the date from). So everyone celebrates on December 25, but most use the modern and worldwide-spread Gregorian calendar, while Orthodox Christians use the Julian calendar date for December 25, which is January 7. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed, January 7 is okay in the infobox. But I still don't think it is necessary to include in the main paragraphs of introduction to the article. It is clearly explained in the first "Celebration" section, so there is no need to cause unnecessary confusion over the issue in the intro paragraphs. I will add to the infobox. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mate. That's all I was going for. Cheers. --TheDmitryPetrov (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Christianity 

message: (Page division needed?)
The purpose of this article is, in my opinion, unclear and mixed. It attempts to explain both the cultural tradition and Christmas as well as Christmas as a Christian festival. While these traditions are obviously heavy linked, they are still distinct enough to perhaps be split as articles. Often explaining the folklore, pagan, secular etc parts of Christmas is impeded by the religious element, and vice versa I am sure. For example, description of this festival as an iteration of a larger and older Eurasian tradition is prohibited. Also the description of many non-Christian parts of the season are either omitted or non-rigorously alleged to be linked or even born out of Christianity. I am concerned, because many of the people who see the Christmas are looking for a description of the cultural festival (Santa, presents, trees, nuts etc) [perhaps a project outside of the Christianity portal) rather than seeing a religious focused page with some concessions to the festival they were looking for.
Sorry for being so wordy, and it is a good article.  Protectthehuman (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand both of your concerns, but there is no way you can have an article about "Christmas" (Christ's Mass) split into two articles, one about the secular aspects and one about the birth of Jesus. The holiday named "Christmas" cannot be removed from the definition of "the mass (commemoration) of (the birth of) Jesus of Nazareth". The pre-Christian pagan festivals obviously had a huge impact on at the very least the December 25 date for Christmas, but many secular aspects of Christmas originated in the 18th/19th century reformation, not in pagan tradition, such as Santa Claus (although some elements of the Santa story like flying reindeer are pre-St. Nicholas and pre-Christian, going back into Nordic pagan tradition). The holiday obviously isn't 100% Christian, but it's also not 100% pagan or secular. It's a mix of all three of those, and if we were going to realistically split the article we'd need to split it into three articles: Christian Christmas, secular Christmas, and pagan Christmas. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 02:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also wanted to add... many atheists, including myself, celebrate some of the "Christian" parts of Christmas as well, such as singing Christian Christmas carols, etcetera. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is one page adequate for the subject? 

message: According to Sir James George Frazer the church encouraged Christians to celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus because of the enourmous popularity of the Pagan holiday, even among Christians. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PT379&dq=mithras+christmas+birthday&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Hopefully some secular person can add these important historical facts. I won't bother as I have better things to do than deal with religious fanatics who have hijacked the majority of articles dealing with Christianity on wikipedia.201.230.48.220 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the sol invictis theories are already mentioned in the history section.  Xandar  00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas instituted by church to combat Pagan Day of the Sun festival 

message: Under controversy it says, "In the private sphere also, it has been alleged".  Who is alleging this? Without reference to specific groups or persons this sounds like a "straw man argument".  The response to these supposed allegations linked to a particular group, but the allegation itself is not proven.
:The citations for those claims are at the main Christmas controversy article itself. You are welcome to add them to this article. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Issue 

message: In discussions of the appearance of the wise men (magi), it should be mentioned that the biblical account states that King Herod ordered the killing of male children two or under when the magi did not return to him after seeing Jesus.  This indicates that they were not in attendance at Christ's birth {"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Matthew 2:16 NAS)}.  Also, the magi did not see Jesus in a manger or stable, but in a house {"And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him; and opening their treasures they presented to Him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11 NAS)}, which is another indication that they were not in attendance at the time of Jesus' birth.
98.149.205.236 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magi (wise men) in nativity scenes 

message: We should also mention the fact that Christmas was celebrated even before the introduction of Christianity. Bosniak (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't. Really, where do you people get this stuff? CHRISTmas is a CHRISTian feast. Whether it replaced an earlier celebration is already documented. Read the article. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: But it is completely true that Christmas was never celebrated before Christianity. Almost nothing is original anyway, so it is irrelevant that some Christmas customs have nothing to do with Jesus. These customs are part of the Christmas celebration. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas before Christianity 

message: Congratulations Wikipedia for including accurate information about the origin of the Christmas feast, better known as Yule or Winter Solstice. It's rare to see factually accurate information on here. I nominate the relevant portions of this article as an example for all to follow. :) 81.141.76.119 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy! 

message: The article on Christmas is good but the author seems not to know the reason why it is placed in the calendar when it is.
The feast is placed purposely then because it is the time when the sun  begins to increase, just as the Feast of John the Baptist in June is set for the time when the sun begins to decrease - based on John the Baptists own words of "He must increase and I must decrease."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donockley (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various contradictory theories on the dating of Christmas, of which Donockley's is only one. None are conclusively proven. The solstice festival theory is only that. Others say Christmas is dated 9 months from the Annunciation, (conception of Jesus), festival on 25th March.  Xandar  00:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas 

message: The article states that "Current tradition in several Latin American countries (such as Venezuela and Colombia) holds that while Santa makes the toys, he then gives them to the Baby Jesus, who is the one who actually delivers them to the children's homes, a reconciliation between traditional religious beliefs and the iconography of Santa Claus imported from the United States."
I have heard of no such tradition and cannot find any reference anywhere to it. Santa Claus is an imported figure of the traditional Christmas celebration but to my knowledge nobody in those countries holds that Santa Claus makes the toys and gives them to Baby Jesus. Please state the source of this claim, which I believe to be false.
Pbueno (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pablo, there's a reason why Wikipedia is never used academically, or by anybody looking to get taken seriously. Don't sweat it, just change it and move on. This is all a big word game ;) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current tradition in Colombia 

message: The "History" section has two sentences that should be connected in some way, since their separation suggests that they are not related.
The early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 A.D.) thought this dating plausible and suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date.[50] According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after nine months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25th.[49]
In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation on March 25, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.
I'd edit it myself, but this page is locked...presumably to prevent godless marketers from saying Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.196.28 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote this material because it is quite misleading. The theory that Africanus calculated the nativity as March 25 plus nine months was proposed by Duchesne in the 19th century. It is just speculation because Africanus' writing has not survived. To write about what Africanus "thought" is doubly speculative. IMO, this whole theory doesn't really explain anything. The ancient medical authorities discuss eight month, nine month, and ten month pregnancies -- they did not calculate due dates or think of pregnancy as something that should last exactly nine months. Why not a birth date of Dec. 24 or Dec. 26? The March 25 plus nine month explanation only begs the question of, Why is Annunciation on March 25? Presumably because that was the date of the equinox. Putting Christian festivals on solar days is natural given the well-documented link early Christians made between Jesus and the "sun of righteousness." To say that Christmas is on the date of the Roman solstice festival (Bruma) is a satisfactory explanation by itself -- the nine month calculation just adds a little extra gloss. Kauffner (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition in History section 

message: (| Class = "wiki table"
| -
! Language! Merry Christmas
|-
| Welsh || Nadolig Llawen]] || Nadolig Llawen
ur gsay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.69.238 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Merry Christmas" in different languages 

message: In the section headed History / Middle Ages, the end of the papraraph reads 'changed from December 6 to Christmas Eve'.  It should read 'changed from January 6 to Christmas Eve'.  
I believe this to be a simple error, and the change makes the text internally consistent.  January 6 is, of course, the date of Epiphany, when Christians exchanged gifts.  (6 December has no particular religious significance.)
Clyntong (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Clyntong, 28 July 2010 

message: Sorry for my American and non-religious bias, but I have never heard Christmas be called "Feast of the Nativity". I realize that the current wording says "originally" but there is no source. Doing a google search for "Feast of the Nativity" yields 920,000 hits, while Christmas gets over 420 million. It looks redundant and brings up the issue of not listing other old names for Christmas (Christ's Mass, Yule, etc.). This information sould be included (if there is a source) in the history section, not the opening sentence. Alek2407 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And many "feast of the Nativity" hits are for Mary & for John the Baptist. Even if it were sourced that this was the original name, it does not belong in the lede.--JimWae (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Feast of the Nativity" from opening sentence. 

message: Some countries celebrate Christmas December 24, e.g. Denmark. Is that not worth mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.22.68 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas December 24 

message: It;s Christmas time not "Christmastime". N00bs!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.203.46 (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Right before in-text citation 105 (after "organized boycotts of individual retailers") there is an extra period and a random quotation mark. These should be removed.
:Done. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typographical Error 

message: I am in favor of retaining the image of the icon of Jesus, (1) to provide variety as a depiction of the nativity is already present a few sections below, (2) because it is more relevant than an image of the nativity to a statement indicating that Jesus' birthdate is unknown in a section called "Date of celebration", (3) because Template:Christianity should probably be in this article, but it isn't, and I think the image of Jesus from that template suffices as an alternative. (If this image is rejected, I think we should put Template:Christianity into this article), and (4) because the holiday is regarding Jesus, and it is helpful to have an icon of him as an adult for variety rather than a redundant extra depiction of the nativity. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My main argument for the retaining of the icon is for variety's sake and to add a different type of depiction of Jesus to the article. We already have a nativity image, so a second is redundant. As for your argument that the icon is not relevant, I don't see how it can't be. We are talking about the date for Jesus’ birth, and we already have an image of the nativity in the section about the celebration of his birth specifically, so how is a depiction of him later in life totally irrelevant to discussion about his birth date? Are you saying that in any other article with a large section about someone's birth, an image depicting them later in life is entirely irrelevant? Especially if there's already another image depicting their birth?. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is about a holiday that commemorates Jesus' birth.  Your argument that only one image of the nativity is to be included makes no sense.  It's about providing the most relevant images, not providing as many different kinds of images as possible regardless of how relevant they are. MCSKY (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An image about a phone book would qualify as "not relevant" to Christmas. A depiction of Jesus, albeit later in life, would not. We disagree what qualifies as a relevant image, fine. Let's wait to see what others have to say about the issue. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Including a picture of Jesus later in life seems completely out of place in an article that is not about the life of Jesus. The article is about a holiday and images should be very closely related to the holiday. For example, it would make more sense to include a gallery of various national and historical depictions of Santa Clause/Father Christmas. Doc  Tropics 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what all the fuss is about. Include them both. I would not object to having five or six different depictions of the birth of Jesus. I don't think it's redundant to give multiple examples of how classical and modern artists have imagined the nativity. The icon is okay, too, and I agree that Template:Christianity should be in the article. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Different depictions of Jesus' birth and the nativity are not a problem, they are closely related aspects of the holiday. It's the unrelated image of Jesus "later in life" that doesn't belong in an article about the holiday. Regarding the Christianity template however, it does seem appropriate as a footer and there haven't been any strong objections to including it; most objections were to the image. Doc  Tropics 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 2 objections to the icon image so far, with one in support of it and one indifferent to its inclusion. The reason I first added the image to the article was because it made a good fit with my caption, which was: "Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season". I added this caption because it is relevant to the "Date of celebration" section. I think it fits to have a later-life representation of Jesus in this context, as it is simply a statement about Jesus himself. Images of the nativity portray more than just Jesus himself, thus would not be appropriate to pictoralize such a caption. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you feel your statement needs to have a picture to go with it?  An image of the nativity is related to the article, but the icon of Jesus is not. MCSKY (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that the caption of icon in the earlier version of the article ("Jesus was not likely born on December 25, or in the winter season") was inappropriate as it presented a slant to the article that was unnecessary. To an individual who did not read further, it appears as if the caption was trying to discredit the holy day. If a caption for the icon is to be included, it should say something universal and major about Christmas such as "Christmas is the celebration of God coming into the world, in the form of man, so that He would eventually atone for the sins of humanity." That being said, I think that any image relating to the Christ Child would be the most relevant. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Edit War — Icon of Jesus vs. Nativity image 

message: Please capitalize "h" and "m" to change text to "Holy Mass." Thank you.
 Not done for now: I don't see why that should be capitalized since it's just showing the Latin translation. Please explain in more detail why you think that should be capitalized. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit semi-protected 

message: Why is this tag here? 
71.84.34.253 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable sources 

message: "such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees."
I assume the sentence is referring to North Korea, since the give-giving, decorations and Christmas trees. However there is a massive population of Christians in South Korea, it is one of their main religions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.251.251 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true. Thirty per cent of South Koreans are Christians, but the religion hardly exists at all in North Korea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is incorrect either way "Korea" is represented (South only or Korea as a whole). If "Korea" indicates South Korea only, it's incorrect because Christianity is a major religion in South Korea. If it indicates both South and North Korea, it's also incorrect since North Korea does not celebrate Christmas at all. —Preceding unsigned  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.123.195 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: As I understand it different countries celebrate Christmas on different days.  Some the 24th some the 25th.  There is no mention of this in the article.. can someone with knowledge on this modify the article with where this varies.  As I understand it north Europe and eastern European countries is 24th, and the rest is 25th? -NeF (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a little more searching it seems it was aligned to the 25th for Christian reasons? More info would be appreciated -NeF (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard of celebration on the 24th, except as celebration of Christmas Eve in preparation for Christmas Day. As has been said in the article, some nationalities celebrate Christmas on 7th January.  Xandar  01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It is the same way in most Latin American countries. There may be more, but I do not know for a fact. It should definitely be mentioned that there are different ways Christmas is celebrated. One note, technically, in the countries I mentioned, gifts are opened on the 25th, as they wait until midnight on the 24th, which is the 25th. Anyway, you know where I'm going... It is on Christmas Eve... Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  24th vs 25th 

message: The last paragraph of the "Date of Celebration" section says the following...
"However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on the 25th of December is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian denominations;[21][22][23] rather, the fact that God came into the world, in the form of man, to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas.[21][22][23]"
It should say, "the BELIEF that God came into the world, in the form of man...."
Not FACT. Thank you. Please change this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navid500 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made a good point about WP:NPOV. I've changed the word "fact" to "belief" per your suggestion. Thanks for noticing, AnupamTalk 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The semantics are confusing here.  The churches (i.e., believers) would say "the FACT that God came into the world" and the fact is the reason for the celebration.  The article, of course, needs to be NPOV and shouldn't claim it to be "fact".  The sentence should be rewritten for clarity on this point.--Albany45 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How about this: "...rather, the the coming of God into the world in the form of a man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas." Christians aren't celebrating a belief; they believe, and so they celebrate. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence looks very good. And I do agree with you last point. It may be important to note that in a way to keep it NPOV. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "BELIEF"...not "fact" 

message: While the Biblical Magi are mentioned in the Gift giving section, they are not mentioned in the Legendary gift-bringing figures section. In many European and Latin American countries, the Magi bring presents as well. This happens on the morning of January 6th. While this is not in the official day of Christmas, it is worth noting that in these countries the 'main' Christmas gifts are brought by the Magi, and only small presents are given to children by Santa Claus. This is done somewhat in order to 'comply' with the American celebration of Christmas, but nothing more.
It seems to me that this is worth adding to the article, as its purpose seems to be to encompass the world-wide view of Christmas. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits to the Gifts sections 

message: While noting that some Orthodox churches follow the Julian Calendar date of January 7th... These churches mentioned form the majority of Orthodox believers worldwide.... Such as the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Serbians and Old Calendar Greeks....This would be the majority.
It is false to state that a majority of Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.125.181 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Christmas Date. 

message: The image File:Nativity tree.jpg used in the infobox looks 3rd rate at best, 4th rate in reality. It may look a little better enlarged, but looks "really shabby" as is. I am not going to advocate an alternative since I do not edit this page, but for Heaven's sake please get a better image. There are hundreds of images on Wikimedia commons. Whoever edits this page, please select a higher quality one, have a discussion, arrange a quick vote and replace it. It is Christmas, after all. Merry Christmas. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've enlargened the image for the time being. The reason the current image is used in the infobox is because it mixes secular decorations and the nativity in one image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be used in the infobox, and this is a compromise. The previous compromise image was a collage, which in my opinion looked too artificial and ugly for the article. This image is more natural looking and isn't a composite. Let us know what you think of the enlargement. Otherwise, please suggest an alternative image, keeping in mind the compromise between secular and religious imagery. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low quality image in the infobox 

message: A simple fix for someone who can edit this article: commemorates the birth of Jesus, the birth of Jesus, the 
Douglasburgeson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix 

message: I was just wondering; there are so many different symbols of Christmas, so instead of just having one picture, maybe someone could create a montage incorporating all of the symbols of Christmas. Examples would be the main image already there, a tree, Santa Clause, maybe a mistletoe. What does everyone think? Nations United (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it the way it is. Have each picture appear in the part of the article it illustrates. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ruckabumpkus—montages are ugly IMO, and we are fine just placing any images of all the respective Christmas traditions in their respective sections within the article. The infobox used to have a montage pic, but it was removed because it was too contrived and ugly looking. The current picture is the best one we have available that mixes the secular and Christian imagery of the holiday in one single (natural) image. There has been constant debate as to whether secular or religious imagery should be in the infobox picture, and the only two possible compromises would be our current "natural mix" image (or a similar image), or a montage. I am personally against a montage picture. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 03:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. It seems that people don't like this idea, and I can see why. Nations United (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: This page probably isn't going to be fully protected today like many pages are in similar situations. This is because, unlike me, most people have better things to do and are taking a break from normal activity which sadly today means being on the internet hence the page is not likely to be vandalized. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha I was right, almost nothing is happening today. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  christmas day 

message: The Etymology section is lacking in two respects.  First, the suffix "-mas" means an arrival.  While the word "mass" as used to mean the Catholic liturgies is derived similarly, Christmas does not mean Christ's Mass.  Rather, it means Christ's arrival.  Second, the etymology of the term Xmas does not inform the etymology of the term Christmas, and should be given its own section or page.  (With regard to the etymology of the term Xmas, the Greek chi is substituted for the 'Christ-' part, because in Greek, the word Χριστός begins with chi.  But since the Latin word for Christ is Christus, it's unlikely that the Roman X had any influence on the term Xmas.) Atozxrod (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the section on chi, absent any objection. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The holly and ivy were fertility symbols of pagan origin during Modranecht (Night of the Mother, followed by Day of the Child, or feast of lights). The same goes for Mistletoe. Holly and Ivy were also used in Greek Mythology, Holly being representative of the male and Ivy for the female. (see The dancer and Dionysus in Greek Mythology) 
Also, the origin of exchanging gifts. As part of modranecht a fir tree would be uprooted from the nearest glen and decorated in red bows and statues as effigies of varying gods and goddesses of the pagan faith. Candles would be lit in the tree and a 5 pointed star placed on top. Gifts of fruit and other offerings would be made to the effigies in the tree. 
As Modranecht was the night of the mother followed by the day of the child, it became pagan tradition to offer gifts to the children of the household as well as to the pagan gods and goddesses. 
The origin of the word Christmas is a contradiction in itself. To put the 'holy name' of the Christian Messiah with the Pagan name for celebration (Mass) was originally deemed sacreligious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.229.160 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the origins of the 'traditional' christmas symbols 

message: Willrocks10, why are you insisting on changing the picture in the upper right hand corner? The only reason you've given is that you think it "looks better." I think the creche with Christmas trees in the background illustrates the topic. If you don't have a good reason for the change, please don't change it.
If there are no objections, I plan to change it back again. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Willrocks10, please stop making your substitution of the image in the infobox. That picture has been there quite a while, and your opinion that the one you keep substituting "looks better" is not sufficient reason for making such a change. (Besides, I think it's a tacky-looking tree). If you persist in making your substitution, I will assume you're committing vandalism. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should keep the nativity scene/trees picture and not the Christmas tree that Willrocks10 (and his sockpuppet?) are trying to insert. Willrocks, please join discussion here and reach consensus for change before re-inserting the image. — CIS (talk  | 
EXCUSE ME! How ruse of you! PBL1998 is not my sockpuppet!
WILLROCKS10 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in infobox 

message: THE MAGI IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW DID NOT VISIT AN INFANT IN A MANGER ,BUT HE WAS FOUND IN AN HOUSE AND COULD HAVE BEEN APPROX. 2 YEARS LATER.BECAUSE IT STATES THAT HEROD INSTRUCTED THE CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN 2 YEARS AND UNDER BECAUSE 2 YRS. HAD PASSED SINCE HE TALKED TO THE MAGI. MATTHEW IS THEREFORE MIS- REPRESENTED.
MATHEW-2:11 AND MATTHEW-2:16
75.203.4.188 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What you are asking to add is considered original research. If you find a reliable source that comes to the same conclusion as you have, feel free to post it here and remove the "tlf|" from the template to restore your request to the queue. Thank you, — Bility (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 75.203.4.188, 17 March 2011 

message: Please add this External link to this article.
* Christmas celebrations
122.177.51.205 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link appears to be to a commercial site, advertising wares for sale.  As per policy WP:EL, these links are not permitted.  --HighKing (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 122.177.51.205, 27 June 2011 

message: Dear editor, regarding the contribution of your christmas item, you say 'its a time when God came to earth'.. of course it was Gods Son that came to earth, to Atone for Mans fall from grace, God sacrificed his Son, he did not sacrifice Himself!! 'he sent his only begotten Son'
Regards; M. O'Dwyer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.60.22 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are an editor too. Change it if you think it should be different. However, I'd like to point out that what you propose is very much a point of view.War (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's also a minority point of view considering that most Christians believe in the concept of the trinity ie Jesus as God. 81.216.166.32 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  God came to earth at christmas?? 

message: From the introduction paragraph: "The supposed details of his birth are recorded in two of the Canonical gospels in the New Testament of the Bible." I added the emphasis to the word supposed, because it seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Different people have different beliefs. By calling them supposed details, the article seems to show an author's bias, as it implies that the details "recorded in two of the Canonical gospels...." aren't an accurate history of what actually occurred. I think intro could be changed so that it doesn't question one of the cornerstones of Christianity, while simultaneously avoiding calling into question the beliefs of non-Christians. Something like "Christians believe that the details of his birth are recorded in two of the...." would work better. Yes, I realize that there are multiple definitions for supposed, but the one that seems to apply to this context is definition 2A from www.m-w.com, which defines supposed as "held as an opinion : believed; also : mistakenly believed : imagined." --Lacarids (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Narratives of his birth are included in...."? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Narratives" works better.  Especially as not all Christians believe in the details of the bible as fact.  Some see them as allegorical stories. MightyAtom (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Flawlessly neutral. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid the thinking behind this is flawed. The birth accounts in the two gospels are contradictory so why should we use  language to suggest they might be true? At least one account isn't true. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issue? 

message: The third paragraph says, in part, "It is also an officially-recognized holiday in hundreds of nations. . ." Since there are only about 200 nations in the world  (the UN has 193 members; the US recognizes 195 nations) and some do not celebrate Christmas (e.g. Saudi Arabia), the phrase "hundreds of nations" should be replaced by something like, "nearly all nations of the world."
(Henrodon (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: —–Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed it from "in hundreds of nations" to "in a vast majority of the world's nations", with a link to List of holidays by country — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 01:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds (?) of countries 

message: Christmas means different things to Christians and non-Christians.  For Christians, in every country, it means a celebration of the birth of Jesus.  For non-Christians in countries where it is a public holiday, it has a meaning quite independent of Christian belief.  (I suppose that for non-Christians in countries where Christianity is ignored (some Islamic countries, China ...) it has no meaning at all.)  The two meanings can and should be indicated, and should be indicated right at the start.  That is the reasoning behind my attempt at an NPOV revision of the lead.  Esoglou (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like the best direction for proceeding forward for now.--JimWae (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It is still POV to indicate what Christmas means to Christians or non-Christians. The article should simply relay the facts of the holiday, not tell the reader what Christians and non-Christians celebrate about it — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Censoring out the understanding of arguably the majority of those who celebrate Christmas would certainly not make an NPOV article.  I refer to thoser who consider it a distortion to see Christmas as no more than a turkey-and-pudding-and-spending-and-giving-etc. holiday.  Nor would it be NPOV to censor out the image of Christmas that others have (perhaps also arguably the majority).  Each side may consider the other's understanding of what is essential to Christmas to be misguided, but the different understandings do exist.  Esoglou (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the edits you have made to the intro and agree with much of them, but I have tweaked the context of wording from "Christmas is for Christians a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus", to "Christmas is a holiday celebrated by billions of people. It is a Christian feast day celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ". This is a more direct, neutral way of relaying the information instead of saying what the holiday is "for Christians" or "for non-Christians". The first sentence is one I argued for in many paragraphs in the previous section, and JimWae agreed as well that it is best to have the first sentence be a universal statement without any indication of what the holiday is "all about" — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 22:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Esoglou is right. Christmas is not a single thing, and to try to craft a lede that treats it as if it is will not work. In the 21st Century, the Christian holy day and the secular holiday are clearly distinguishable as two different things. They share the same name and date and are historically entwined but have evolved along different tracks. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, and since there's only one article to summarize both versions, it's best to just indicate that it's a holiday celebrated by billions of people around the world in the first sentence. Then go on to explain the objective facts about it being both a Christian feast day and a civil holiday, without getting into a POV of what the holiday might "mean" for Christians or non-Christians. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 07:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very selective reasoning, though. Considering the reliable sources and their definitions, there's no real reason to suggest that it's "best to just indicate that it's a holiday celebrated by billions of people around the world" in the opening sentence. The "objective facts" are that reliable sources (OED, M-W, EB) provide definitions of Christmas that first determine it to be a commemoration of the birth of Jesus. Regardless, I don't intend to make any changes going against current consensus (see below) and see the article's intro as it stands right now as an acceptable compromise. Oh, and my apologies for being busy and unable to take part in this discussion for most of yesterday. Jordanson72 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see this comment until I replied to your comment in the below section, but I think given this line of discussion about acknowledging both "versions" (secular and Christian) of the holiday, as well as earlier discussion between yourself, I and JimWae which resulted in he and I agreeing about a universal introductory sentence of sorts, that the universal intro sentence currently in place should hopefully be satisfying to all parties concerned about the Christian or secular versions of the holiday. It does not specify anything in regard to the nature of the celebration of the holiday, only the name, date, worldwide status and number of people celebrating. Therefore, you could argue that it is not in any way defying the reliable sources' definition of Christmas, it is just prefacing that definition with relevant, notable facts that, through a link to Christmas worldwide, relay to the audience the status of the holiday as being universally embraced beyond the realm of Christianity. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See below. Jordanson72 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguish meanings 

message: This entire article needs to be rewritten by a historian or scholar, not a christian.  A Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus is ONLY ONE opinion of what Christmas is.  The truth is that Christmas started as a Pagan ritual of lawlessness, that doesn't sound very Christian to me.  This entire article, if it's to exist, needs to be fair and balanced and represent everything about Christmas, like it's origins and meaning to different people of different religions.  Starting this article with that introduction sets the tone for nothing but lies and one sided opinions.  It's also curious that the references are all from the Bible and Christian publications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyerhaus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll check the above sections, you'll see there has been an ongoing heated discussion for days about this issue. It has become very contentious, and we are all continuing to work together to arrive at the best possible compromise. The fact is, Christmas didn't "start as a pagan ritual of lawlessness", that's original research. When the Roman Church first placed the holiday on December 25, it was very likely done to replace the existing pagan holiday(s) of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (which was on December 25 itself) and Saturnalia, which ran Dec. 17–23. However, that does not make Christmas itself a pagan holiday of any kind, just a Christian holiday that absorbed pre-Christian pagan practices because pagans who were Christianized continued to celebrate their pagan rituals under the guise of Christmas. All reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia uses to keep articles neutral and unbiased, define Christmas as a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus’ birth. If you can find any reliable sources that state otherwise, please present them. I attempted to rewrite the entire intro myself a few days ago (see that revision here), but it was considered too biased against the Christian side of the holiday, and I accept that and am willing to compromise. I have plans to incorporate some of those edits into the "History" section instead — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory that Christmas was replacement for some Roman holiday is just speculation. The Romans had 160 holidays a year, so any date the church picked would correspond to some Roman holiday. Christmas is nine months after Annunciation (March 25). The Christian tradition that Annunciation was on the spring equinoix pre-dates Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. If you wanted to co-opt a holiday, Saturnalia would be the logical choice since that was by far the most important Roman holiday. But Saturnalia was on December 17, over a week before Christmas. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it was intended as such, clearly Christmas has absorbed many pagan customs from winter solstice celebrations that have now been secularized in modern times. It is likely that the Church knew that the winter solstice (Dec. 25 in Ancient Rome) was the best date to place the holiday on. Christmas was a raucous festival with many similarities to Saturnalia into the Middle Ages, it is not until the 19th century that we start to see it become the familiar family festival we have today — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 03:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when is Christmas a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus? 

message: After the recent slew of revisions, the lede as it stands now looks like it was written as a compromise statement of a divided committee, which it in fact is. I especially dislike the first sentence ("Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual holiday generally celebrated on December 25[2][3][4] by billions of people around the world."), because it says essentially nothing of importance that isn't already common knowledge. The trouble we seem to be having is that we're using the word Christmas to refer to two distinct things but related things (the Christian holy day and the secular holiday), and we're trying to define it as if it's a single thing. I don't have a good suggestion for how to do it (some of you folks apparently have a lot more spare time to work on this than I do), but it needs work. It's worse now than it was before all the revisions. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the name, date, and widely-celebrated status around the world not "important" or "already common knowledge" any more than anything else that could be said? Isn't it very common knowledge that Christmas is a Christian holiday? And that it's celebrated by non-Christians too? And even that it's a holiday celebrating peace, goodwill, and commerce? I'd venture to say it's not common knowledge at all that Christmas is a public holiday and widely celebrated in India, Japan, etc. The current opening sentence is one of the few statements that could be said in the first sentence that would be agreed upon by everyone, given recent discussion regarding a universal opening statement and acknowledgment of the holiday as both a Christian holy day and secular holiday. The previous intro statement said "Christmas is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus", and while this is indeed a fact and supported by reputable sources, it does not represent Christmas in a universal sense, which is what an opening sentence should do. The current one prefaces with relevant, universal information about Christmas, then goes on to explain its status as a Christian feast and public holiday. Telling us "this article needs work" accomplishes nothing; what do you suggest the intro sentence be changed to, and why? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 05:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me put it another way. The current openening sentence is a vague, nonspecific comment (how many "billions"?) that says nothing of importance about what Christmas is, or more precisely, what the two Christmases are. I agree with the folks who say that omitting mention of the Christian observance from what will be read as a definition reflects an anti-religious POV. Even non-Christians who celebrate Christmas have some vague idea of its Christian roots, even if they have only a vague idea about what it means. Maybe something along these lines could work: "Christmas is a holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated by most Christians around the world, and also a secular holiday, celebrated apart from its religious meaning by billions of Christians and non-Christians alike." Ruckabumpkus (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this point. As its written Christianity has been airbrushed out of Christmas. The 2 billion Christians can get stuffed eh?Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Well to be honest, IMHO that intro sounds much more like a "compromise statement from a divided committee" than the current one does. It reads much more awkwardly, and is also a run-on sentence. Also, what you've proposed introduced original research, with the claim that Christmas is "also a secular holiday" and is celebrated "apart from its religions meaning" by billions of Christians and non-Christians. What is written now keeps the very first sentence universally applicable by stating immutable facts only, then the next sentence goes on to explain the Christian holy feast in detail, then we mention that it is a civil holiday in much of the world's countries and it is celebrated by non-Christians. All sourced. No OR about if non-Christians celebrate it without any religious meaning or how non-Christians might celebrate it, just that they do. As for "how many billions?", I do not believe that figure has never been obtained, but given the worldwide Christian population is 2.1 billion, and atheists/agnostics/irreligious are at least 1 billion, it is safe to assume billions. I'd be fine changing it to millions or retooling the intro sentence in some other way, but I stand firm behind retaining a universal opening sentence. Unless we can find a good intro that covers the Jesus/Christian/non-Christian elements without introducing OR or seeming too forced or contrived — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have just tidied up the intro a bit in an attempt to make it easier to follow, merging some paragraphs and clarifying some other information. Slowly but surely, we can morph the intro into something we can all hopefully agree with to a certain extent. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 08:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way you're going to craft an opening sentence about Christmas that omits mention of the birth of Jesus without it seeming to lots of Christians like anti-religious POV. It sounds too much like Soviet revisionist propaganda. I'm not willing to fight about it, though. Better that the opening sentence say nothing of importance than that it try to define Christmas primarily as something other than a Christian observance, which has been tried in the past. As you say, the rest of the lede is clear enough about its Christian origins. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, there are plenty of other popular holidays that have concise opening sentences that do not mention anything regarding the nature of the holiday or celebration. Halloween's for example, merely mentions the date, that it is observed around the world, and that it occurs on the eve of All Saints' Day. Easter's indicates that it is the central feast of the Christian liturgical year, but nothing about what it celebrates. St. Patrick's Day's article indicates that it is a religious holiday celebrated on March 17. These are all quite similar to the current intro sentence here — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is now messy 

message: I see that Esoglou has changed the Infobox picture from the image of a nativity scene with surrounding Christmas trees to one depicting merely the nativity. I don't have any problem with this personally, but browsing through the talk archives, I am seeing that there seems to have been a consensus in place that the image reflect both a religious and secular element of Christmas (see here, here and here for most recent discussion). Prior to the nativity/tree image there was a collage depicting several different elements, but it was deemed to be too "ugly" or "contrived" by users. I would agree, I am not in favor of a collage image. What are others' thoughts on what the Infobox image should depict? Are there any alternative images in the Wikimedia collection that depict both a religious and secular aspect? — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Put the other one back. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My change was for purely artistic reasons.  I'm new to this article.  I didn't know that there were ideological reasons for preferring the other.  And I have no desire to start a discussion about them.  Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, I wasn't insinuating that you should have known, I was just bringing the topic here rather than just reverting your edit — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the new picture in Infobox 

message: In the 3rd sentence, "much of the world's nations" should be changed to "many of the world's nations." (proper grammar)
146.57.87.182 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 6 December 2011 

message: There needs to be a space between "Christmas" and "time" in the word "Christmastime" in the first sentence of the Stamps section. Although it is a viable word, it is distracting to users I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarpopo (talk • contribs) 
:I have changed both mentions of "Christmastime" to "Christmastide".  Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar mistake 

message: I just want to thank the Wikipedia community for putting together such a bad article and then protecting it.  I'm a university professor and I'm always looking for good examples of why Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source and why students should never cite Wikipedia in a university paper.  This particular page is so bad that I have a new example for teaching.  Thank you!  And happy holiday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.228.7 (talk • contribs) 
:If you have concerns about the article, please address the specific concern and we can address it here. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha, no you won't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.83.207 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New anon IP concern

message: Should be removed from 'See Also'.--ImizuCIR (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffle Day? 

message: There are some significant differences in the way Christmas/Nativity is observed in Eastern Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity.  That area really ought to be expanded, and an icon added to show some of the difference.  You can see a nativity icon at this page  http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nativity_icon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Christian perspective?

message: There was a paragraph in the Decorations section attempting to quote Jewish tradition -- "Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the foliage of beautiful trees, palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. " (Leviticus 23:40). Unfortunately, this entire chapter of Leviticus refers to Sukkot, an entirely different Jewish holiday which takes place at a completely different time of the year (a few days after Yom Kippur). Quoting this in reference to anything to do with Christmas is not only incorrect, but offensive. I have already removed the offending paragraph; just explaining my actions here. --Veled (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Leviticus Quote referencing "Jewish Tradition" 

message: The Gospel of Matthew also describes a visit by several Magi, or astrologers, who bring gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the infant Jesus. 
Please change "the infant Jesus" to "the young child Jesus" because Matthew does NOT say Jesus was an infant at this time.  Matthew says "child" or "young child".
SOURCE: read Mathew 2:8 in King James or any other reliable translation.
Nx9999 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Also, Herod's command that all boys "two years and younger" be killed suggests that the visit of the magi was a year or two after the birth. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 December 2011 

message: I think you may be underplaying the role of the Magi and overplaying the role of "Santa Claus" in the article. 
For example, in Spain, the "three kings" or Magi still bring gifts on the 6th of January, and, although there is some incorporation of "Papa Noel" (Santa Claus by another name) due to commercialization for economic reasons as mentioned in the article (I think that part is well written), the majority of the Spanish still celebrate in the traditional manner, and children do not receive gifts until the 6th of January.  You might want to check that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.149.77 (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epiphany and the Magi 

message: Please chance the last line of paragraph 2 to a more professional style. It currently says, "or of some ancient pagan winter festival."
It should be:
"or of an ancient pagan winter festival."
The code would thus read:
or of an ancient pagan winter festival."Christmas", EncartaTighe, William J., "Calculating Christmas". Archived 2009-10-31.
Instead of:
or of some ancient pagan winter festival."Christmas", EncartaTighe, William J., "Calculating Christmas". Archived 2009-10-31.
184.96.242.66 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 24 December 2011 

message: This article uses Jesus' as possessive, but it should be Jesus's:
   Commemorating Jesus' birth
should be:
    Commemorating Jesus's birth
because Jesus is not plural.  I see a few other cases of this in the text.
Bmomjian (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  See MOS:POSS. Also Jesus does not own his own birth. Puffin Let's talk! 23:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be clear, Puffin, the possessive case in English does not necessarily imply ownership (e,g., "my mother"). Ruckabumpkus (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 December 2011 

message: "Countries such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, 
have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas, such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees."
Religion_in_South_Korea
Over 29.2% of Koreans now are Christians by last count, so they are not in the minority, plus the meaning of Christmas is different in Japan than in the US, which this page doesn't make clear. Please rewrite that lead. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Koreans and Christians

message: Hello User:FoxCE, thanks for all of the effort you've put into the article. I reversed your change because it was unsupported by the references. According to Selling God: American religion in the marketplace of culture (Oxford University Press): 
Similarly, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia states: 
The Church established Christmas near the dates of these pagan festivals in order to compete with them, and eventually eliminate them, or "stamp them out." As such, this wording should be reflected in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many theories of this kind and we can hardly put them all in the article. Specialists have written books on this issue, so we don't need to rely on a passing mention that appears in a book with an obvious ax to grind, and whose main subject is only tangentially related. Saturnalia was on Dec. 17 and was originally only one day. The winter solstice was a separate, much less important, holiday called Bruma that was held on Dec. 25. The solstice is a natural event, a day of obvious symbolic importance. If two groups of people schedule festivals on this date, it does not follow that they linking to each other, or that one is doing it to compete with, or supplant, the other. China has a solstice festival too. I don't think that was created to supplant Saturnalia. In ancient times, Easter was the main event Christian holiday. Christmas didn't get going until Medieval times, when it merged with Yule. Kauffner (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplantation of Pagan Festivals 

message: The second paragraph of the intro section covers a topic that is also discussed in a later section, "Date of celebration." There is info at each location not contained in the other. Should they be merged? Should that paragraph in the intro be pared down to a 1-sentence summary, with complete discussion later? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Kauffner's edits satisfy you, or do you want more done with this? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with Kauffner's edits regarding the discussion of the date. I'm just wondering if all the discussion of the reasons for the choice of December 25 should be in one place. Right now they're not. Would anyone object if I do that? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not I. I would make sure all the material is in the date of celebration section, with just a one sentence or so summary in the lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Date 

message: in the section "Using the Julian calendar", in the third sentence:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Bulgaria should be added to the list, like:
However, other Orthodox Christians, such as the churches of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Antioch, Alexandria, Albania, Finland and the Orthodox Church in America, among others, began using the Revised Julian calendar in the early 20th century, which corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar.
Because in Orthodox Bulgaria Christmas is also celebrated on 25th December.
this source can be used:
http://goeasteurope.about.com/od/bulgariatravel/a/bulgariachristmastraditions.htm
95.87.196.100 (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 January 2012 

message: Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark (There are more) celebrate Chrismas on december 24th, or Christmas Eve and get their presents then rather than on Christmas Morning. I would like if you could add that to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.85.113 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a short mention of it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: In the section "Commemorating Jesus' birth". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Europe celebrating Christmas, generally on december 24th.