Talk:Christmas/Archive 5

message: OK, so footnote 3 is a reference to an article by Dennis Bratcher on a Christian youth website.  The trouble is that I could not find where that article says or supports the statement about Geol/Yule made in this entry.  The statement is, I hurry to add, quite correct and rather copiously documented and pretty much universally accepted among researchers (so much so that one wonders if it really requires reference).  A better reference might be the Online Etymology Dictionary entry found here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yule.
On a side note, I find rather amusing the lack of complaint about reference to Christian resource and inspirational sites in this article, given the voriferous debate that previously went on about whether the History Channel website could be considered a valid reference for Christmas subjects. TheCormac (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geol

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose): Well written and easily read the whole way through, no grammar or punctuation issues. b (MoS): Generally good, though I'd question including the etymology of the word "Christmas" in the lead.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references): Most information is referenced... there were a few possibly controversial statements that were not given inline citations (eg, "Misrule")  b (citations to reliable sources): Good, though dead links need fixing.  c (OR): None. The parts moved to Christmas/temp add lots to the article, though they are unsourced and possibly OR. It should, however, be a simple matter of google searching for sources. 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects well. - There is still a recurring theme of editors believing the secular nature of Christmas has not been covered in enough detail. This is a major omission.  b (focused): A few issues were not dealt with as in-depth as I would have expected (eg Santa Claus). While the main Santa page deals with this well, I found the information on this page rather sparse. For example, when describing the "image" of Santa Claus, it only states that by so-and-so date the image had evolved into the one we know today. What one? I presume this means fat guy with beard in red and white furry suit, but it's not stated. I'd also question why the "Green Chri$tma$" sentence is needed. I'm sure there have been many commentaries on the commercialisation of Christmas. Why is this one special? Removing poorly sourced yet relevant and probably accurate material just because its easier than tracking down sources is not a satisfactory result.  
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: Some editors have expressed concern that the article is too focused on Christmas as a religious feast day, and skims over secular observance of the festival. I tend to agree with this - for better or worse, "Christmas" is celebrated in many ways and the secular "commercialised" way is quite widespread. Whilst the "Christmas Controversy" is mentioned breifly, it doesnt seem to be giving any weight to the secular celebration of Christmas. This is, I believe, the article's main weakness.
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: Fairly high traffic page, but most are either vandalism or relatively minor edits. No problem. Since the GA nomination, regular changes have been made which have not resulted in a clear consensus version.
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All fine.  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No problem, though I would have expected a picture of a fat guy in a furry red and white suit! 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: It's mostly a good article, but the possible POV issue with the secular observance as well as the occasionally insufficient information makes me think this is a narrow fail. It is, however, pretty close, so I will ask for a second opinion before making a final grade. Yeti Hunter 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been on hold for some time now and the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. As such, the result is a fail. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That would do nothing more than create two ultra-biased POV forks. We need to create one Christmas article that covers all relevant views without giving undue weight to anything. Discussion and consensus-building will work things out. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to disagree, but I think you miss my point.  It is simply reality to say that the word Christmas, like many words in English, has multiple meanings.  It is a religious feast day for Christians, it is a civil holiday in several secular states (France, U.S., for instance), it is a non-demonational winter festival which amalgamates non-religious traditions and rituals, ancient and recent, from numerous cultures.  Among the things amalgamated and borrowed for this last mentioned meaning has been the word "Christmas," about as emptied of religious content as "Satuday" or Thursday."  The POV argument is really a false one.  There are different Christmases sharing the same name and (usually, but not always) date, but with seperate, if sometimes interacting, histories.  If you don't want to seperate them as entries (which is the usual Wiki practice in case such as this) we should at least begin the entry with a clearer delineation of the different meanings of the word. TheCormac (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, the "fat red idol" is a Christian idea. Santa Claus, or St. Nicholas, is a Catholic saint. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I would agree that there are large issues to be addressed here, but providing a hold is appropriate to at least give the editors the opportunity to fix them before failing (this article doesn't meet any of the hard and fast quick-fail criteria in my view). Other issues include:
* Commenting on the above idea about the lead. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview of the entire article, and it is customarily required that the etymology be included therein.
* There is major inline citation work to be done, sections which are lacking - in part or entirely - in inline citations are: Regional customs and celebrations (esp. Social aspects and entertainment), and Arts and media. If these sections do not get inline cites, the article cannot be passed.
* I agree that the article focuses too much on Christmas as a religious holiday. It is pretty uncontroversial to point out that it is primarily a secular holiday rooted in religious traditions in many - if not most - developed countries. The article does feel imbalanced when reading it. It's indicative that the most-used sources are the Catholic Encyclopedia and a source on medieval Christmas. Of course, there's nothing you can do about that when speaking on the history of the holiday up until about the 20th century. 
There's my two cents, please feel free to contact me for further advice. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article 2nd Opinion

message: In my view, Christmas in the religious sense still dominates this article's content.  Given the overwhelming (and increasing) influence of the secular holiday of Christmas to many modern Western societies, this seems inappropriate.  I would argue that the article is far more religiously flavored than it has been in the past due in large measure to the dubious banishment to "Winter Festivals" of pre-Christian content.  A review of the history tab suggests that attemtpts of people to enhance the non-liturgical and non-Christian parts of this article have been repeatedly excised through the years by those seeking to rewrite history to conform with their faith.  
Given that the standard academic research on the topic (such as Nissenbaum, Schmidt, Connoly, and even Restad) make clear that modern secular Christmas is only tenuously connected to the Christian faith, it seems to me the reasonable response is to do what U.S. law essentially does and create two seperate articles - "Christmas (religious)" and "Christmas (secular)"
Such a solution would also allow for greater cultural variability.  In my view the article now is pretty exclusively focused on Anglo-Saxon traditions and celebrations.  TheCormac (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would do nothing more than create two ultra-biased POV forks. We need to create one Christmas article that covers all relevant views without giving undue weight to anything. Discussion and consensus-building will work things out. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to disagree, but I think you miss my point.  It is simply reality to say that the word Christmas, like many words in English, has multiple meanings.  It is a religious feast day for Christians, it is a civil holiday in several secular states (France, U.S., for instance), it is a non-demonational winter festival which amalgamates non-religious traditions and rituals, ancient and recent, from numerous cultures.  Among the things amalgamated and borrowed for this last mentioned meaning has been the word "Christmas," about as emptied of religious content as "Satuday" or Thursday."  The POV argument is really a false one.  There are different Christmases sharing the same name and (usually, but not always) date, but with seperate, if sometimes interacting, histories.  If you don't want to seperate them as entries (which is the usual Wiki practice in case such as this) we should at least begin the entry with a clearer delineation of the different meanings of the word. TheCormac (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, the "fat red idol" is a Christian idea. Santa Claus, or St. Nicholas, is a Catholic saint. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Still Dominates Secular

message: This holiday was created by Christianity, and it is supposed to celebrate the Birth of Christ.  Not some fat idol in a red coat. This article should have pictures and symbols of Christianity everywhere, for it is a Christian holiday. The majority of this article should be about the religous and Christian meaning. Then, a small section for the secular part. CHRISTmass is about CHRIST, nothing else. All other celebrations and traditions of Christmas should be written all the way at the bottom of the page of the article, because it is unimportant and has no reference to Christ's Mass.
The picture at the beginning of the page should contain more themes of Christianity such as a REAL nativity scene (detailed painting) or a Baby Jesus. If the Jews get to have their own holiday, then so should us Christians. It is not right for Christmas to be dominated by secularism because that is not its real meaning.
I would propose create two article about Christmas, Secular Christmas, and Christmas.
Thank you all for listening.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Director958 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See now, this is what I've been talking about.  Here is a clearly devout Christian who wants a proper entry on a significant event in his religion's calendar.  And why not?  There can be little doubt, however, that there are legions of people (and I won't bother with the pointless squabbling over which side has more) who have the opposite view and think the article should be all about cultural Chirsimas, with only a small appendage on the religious feast day of the same name.  Neither is right or wrong, they are just talking about two distinct things which happen, by historical accident if you will, to share the same name.  Two entries is a good solution.  Failing that, an entry that carefully defines the seperate meanings would be a real improvement.  TheCormac (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas does not have Christian origins. It is a pagan holiday that was adopted by Christianity. Enigmaman (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with above. Christmas doesn't relate to the birthday of Christ since the 25th December is not the correct date anyway for that event, but was chosen by the early church to usurp and replace a pagan event. Even the early church acknowledged at the time that this date was at least out of whack with any possible real birth date by at least one season, maybe two, when considered within the context of when the Roman census were held. There's numerous references. In theological terms Christmas is relatively unimportant compared to Easter according to the Archbishop of Canterbury said.Petedavo talk contributions 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems many of us agree about this, but a few religious zealots are making the article have a biased slant. Enigmaman (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion should dominate Secular

message: Even with these cuts big OR-ish trivia-type sections still lurk at the bottom of the article. Cut, move to talk, or cite ASAP.
Moved here: Talk:Christmas/temp
Please cite and return to the article. --SECisek 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big uncited section

message: I mean, come on—it's less than a month from Christmas yet no one is here discussing anything, and there isn't even much vandalism. Talk about different from last year... and the year before. Is the fad over?Steven Evens (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same suspicions. Apparently, Wikipedia is more consulted than ever but the rate of constructive contributions seems to have hit a low. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this article protected last year like it is now? Looks like this article has been protected twice this month for vandalism. Wrad (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha.  It just struck me how funny it is that we're measuring wikihealth by vandalism levels. Wrad (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about vandalism levels, I'm talking about discussion. Of course there are always going to be idiots vandalising the Christmas pageSteven Evens (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia dead? 

message: The article states that Africanus popularized the idea that Christ was born on December 25, yet the article on Africanus states that he placed the date of Christ's birth at March 25, the traditional date. These need to be reconciled. Darguz Parsilvan 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sextus Julius Africanus 

message: The top summary doesn't even summarize 1/3 of the text in the main article. It just talks about the contemporary main celebration of winter and nothing of it's history or how it came to be. =\ I came here to see if I can verify somethings about Christmas and realized that not even this article has done that. I don't think it deserves a B rank just because of it's length. --199.227.86.10 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Summary 

message: The sections "Christmas as a secular holiday" and "Christmas as a celebration of the nativity" need to be looked at. These sections make it seem as though Christmas is two separate holidays, whereby certain people would celebrate (A) and others (B). This is incorrect, as many people celebrate both the secular and less secular aspects of the holiday simultaneously. For instance, the birth of Jesus, though with its strong religious ties, is not necessarily a solely religious observation as historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth lived, thus he was at one point born, regardless of the circumstances of such. Many at Christmas, including myself, celebrate Jesus as a historical, notable character who deserves to be celebrated for his life accomplishments and legacy. This needs to be revised to some degree, and I will try to help with it. Steven Evens (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you here - albeit only in part.  I agree that the options are actually either or both (or neither, come to that) and not 'choose one religious or secular.'  But your suggestion that they are too split here is totally off base in my view.  I think they are not delineated enough in this article.  The problem is that there are secular traditional mid-winter festivals, full of customs and observances which have little or nothing (depending on what, specifically, we are talking about) to do with the Christian Nativity (Indeed, as people seem to never tire of pointing out, some of them even antedate that event.) but which have also come to be called Christmas in countries with long standing Christian majorities (and even a few now without).  Your suggestion that there are "many" such as yourself in the world who use Christmas to celebrate the historical Jesus of Nazareth separate from the Christian faith is fascinating to me, but I'm afraid I'm deeply skeptical.  Perhaps you can find some social science or public opinion research that suggests there to be a significant number of likeminded people in the world?  I, for one, would appreciate learning about such an unexplored dimension of Christmas! TheCormac (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas as a secular holiday / celebration of the nativity sections 

message: I just made this edit to the Natalis Solis Invictus section. The recently added etymological information was fine, but I think it was superfluous. The only reason to note the lack of connection between the words Sun and son was the parenthetic addition (sun/Son) after the sentence "Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus." As these writers were not using modern English, there is no possibility that the connection they drew had anything to do with the specific words "sun" and "Son". This is made explicit in the quote from Cyprian which follows: "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born." The whole sun/son thing is a modern coincidence unrelated to the early church and doesn't belong in the article. - EronTalk 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun / Son 

message: this article need to be scrapped and completely rewritten by a professional.
This article is as thorough a condemnation of Wikipedia as I have ever seen. Truely bloody awful piece of half-baked opinion and citations from magazine articles for Gods sake.
This article is almost complete bollocks from start to finish the citations are other misinformed repetitoons of commonly occuring myths about Christmas origins and the later history is still inaccurate. Dickens did not reinvent Christmas, for example. It had become unpopular having been censored entirely by the Commonwealth but was revived largely by Victoria and Albert as part and parcel of creating the Royal family mythos and by extension its worth as a family-orientated event.
It also has the worst aspects of Wikipedia in its core. False history, biases glaring, ignorance trumpeted as fact, thinly disguised tosh. God help us.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.2.2 (talk • contribs) 
:I also think this article suffers a lot from a lack of academic sources. Most all of its sources are news/web sources. Those are not really known for being very accurate. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article badly needs to be redone by an unbiased party. This was hijacked by Christians desperate to claim Christmas as their holiday. Enigmaman (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned comment