Talk:December 25

message: Mithra was born on December 25th. I demand that this article reflect this irrefutable FACT that I got from a PRE-BRONZE AGE TEXT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.72.41 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mithra 

message: There is no evidence that Jesus was actually born on December 25. December 25 is the time around the Winter Solstice, and also was the date of the celebration of the birth of Mithras. This is the origin of the Christmas holiday. The article reads "0 - (actual date should be 6 BC) Jesus, great religious teacher, one of the most influential figures of all time". "Great religious teacher" is POV, and "one of the most influential figures of all time" is POV, unless you add something like "considered to be one of the most influential figures in history" but that "of all time" nonsense is pathetic. There is no "year 0", and it would be better put just as "1" not "0".  Revolución 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Traditional" is fine, but then it's clear we're not celebrating a birthday but a tradition or holiday.  As a result, the reference to Jesus belongs entirely under the Holiday section.  Placing it under "Births" is a POV that most of the world doesn't agree with and isn't supported historically (only by tradition).  Also keep in mind that not even all Christian traditions place Christ's birth on the 25th.  Examples:  Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic Christians don't celebrate Christ's birthday on the 25th, and Jehova's Witnesses don't celeberate Christ's birthday at all.  Rklawton 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The so called "Jehovah's Witnesses" aren't even considered Christian.StThomasMore 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  By whom are they not considered Christian?  •Jim62sch• 00:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and inaccurate information 

message: Why would anyone care how many days are between March 1 and December 25? This seems like a huge piece of non-information to have sitting at the top of the artice. I'm going to go ahead and delete it - if you wish you replace it please provide some rationale to help me understand why. Musser 04:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Julian calendars use the day count.  When I served in the U.S. Army, all our official calendars had the day count printed on each date.  Rklawton 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh!  My bad.  March 1st?  I was thinking January 1st.  I haven't a clue, either.  Rklawton 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  300 days from March 1 

message: what about Newtonmas
: I agree. Isaac Newton was born on Dec 25 by the old style (Julian) calender, which was in effect at the time. I am adding him, with a note on the calender change. LeeSawyer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.120.53 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: newton

message: The article currently only says "Jesus" as the name of the person born on December 25. "Jesus" was a fairly common name in that period. I had edited the name "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" to be more specific.
Moreover, earlier today (26 December 2005) I had edited the year from "1 BCE" to "1 BC". The BC/AD system is more frequently used in the world and on Wikipeida at this time and is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ, whose birth is being dated. The "Births" section of this page would be much more correct and better understood by the masses if for the birth of Jesus Christ it said "Jesus Christ - 1 BC" rather than "Jesus - 1 BCE"
: ==  Wikipedia should be inclusive, not divisive  ==
While BC/AD "is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ", Wikipedia is for everyone and BCE should be used because it is inclusive of everyone. AlwaysNeutral (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus links directly to the article for the most widely known person with that name, and no one who clicks that link is going to be surprised. "Christ" is not a name, it is a title which expresses a point of view which is not shared by everyone. Leave it at the simple nuetral link to the name, not at a redirect. And before you edit a single additional page, please look up the proper use of the apostrophe. "Birth's" is an abomination. CDThieme 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: His name would best be listed as "Jesus of Nazareth".PENJrAV8R (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Christ's birth is traditionally 25 December, 1 BC, His first full year of life being in AD 1. 24.222.79.90 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a matter of POV specific to Roman Catholics and Protestants.  The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic churches would beg to differ.  What is NPOV in this matter is that Roman Catholics and (most) Protestants celebrate the Christmas holiday on the 25th.  As a result, references to Christ's birth belongs under holiday (just as it should on other dates also celebrated as Christ's birth by other Christians).  The point is, let's keep NPOV.  Listing Christ's birth as a fact on a specific day is POV - even within Christian communities.  Rklawton 19:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove or disprove information but to provide properly cited encyclopedic information on a topic, therefore if Jesus can be cited as being born on December 25, that information should be recognized on this page.  Any information to counter this should also be noted and properly cited.  Until sufficient evidence is provided to reach consensus, all supportable information should be included.  Exclusion of this information when it is properly cited is itself a form of bias.PENJrAV8R (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ under the "Birth's" 

message: no silly edit wars, please. Why don't we compromise and put BC and BCE next to each other or something.--Alhutch 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not going to permit people removing BCE unless we have a discussion about it here or elsewhere first and come to a consensus.--Alhutch 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While we're on the subject, Darwiner111's been blocked 5 days by Knowledge Seeker, and I myself have blocked Jonathunder for 3 hours - as an admin he should know better than to break 3RR. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Block in error, unblocked. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made my third revert, so as the article stands it reads BC. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  So wait, is this article supposed to read BC then next to Jesus's birth since it was there first? Homestarmy 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit wars 

message: With the recent increasing reversions and a difference in opinion as to whether the birth of Jesus should be noted at this article, I can sense another edit war in this article. Before we get to this point, I think we should talk it out here. I believe Jesus' birth should be noted here, either in Events, Births, or both. Dionysius Exiguus placed the birth of Jesus at 25 December (or at least the date of his incarnation on 25 March) in 525 CE/AD and this is an historical event worth noting. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it is a significant event, an EXTREMELY significant event, (and I, by the way, am Catholic) since it is a birth, it should probably be exclusively in the births. StThomasMore 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Revert again and I will block you for edit warring. I have warned you on God, I have warned you on your talk page. Cease this disruptive behavior. Discuss changes on Talk and only after you have achieved considerable support, preferably consensus, should the edits be made. Do not revert when multiple editors are disagreeing with you. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted above, as the date is not historical, the item belongs in events. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire point is that the date is not historical, thats why the birthdate is supposed to say "Traditional date" or "Traditionally accept date" or whatever. Homestarmy 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending Edit War 

message: Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~
#Though Jesus was born ca. 8–4 BC, traditional date should be acknowledged here (with disclaimer) as the actual date is otherwise unknown — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus mentioned in "Births"

message: Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~
# Birth is disputed; birth date is disputed; the event is the birth and/or holiday. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep mention under "Holidays and observances" only

message: A regulation game is 60 minutes and most games run 2 to 3 hours... is this a typo? BrainRotMenacer 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that's game clock time, not real time.  It'd be about halfway through the second overtime.  Powers T 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest NFL game in history only 82 minutes? 

message: The "of those scholars" language wasn't mine, I've just been preserving it. But I'm not too attached to it. The current language contains a subjective evaluation that could never be cited, even in principle. "Although almost all historians and scholars conclude there was a historical Jesus, the vast majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." is what we have at the moment. "Almost all" is subjective, interpretive language. That probably applies as well to the "vast majority" in both versions. "Historians and scholars" might not be redundant but it certainly sounds so. So how about one of these: "Although most historians conclude there was a historical Jesus, the majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." or "Although most scholars conclude there was a historical Jesus, the majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." — coelacan talk — 12:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, does the existance part even need to be in there, surely people who think Jesus didn't exist would agree we don't know His birthdate? Homestarmy 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs to be there, otherwise the paragraph will not be NPOV, because it will only reflect the POV that Jesus existed. — coelacan talk — 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But its talking about the holiday, not Jesus per se :/. Homestarmy 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "Christmas Day is a Christian holiday on this day celebrating the nativity of Jesus." Real people have nativities located in historical, calendar time. I doubt that it would be possible to remove any reference to Jesus's birth from this summary of Christmas; I also doubt that it would be appropriate to do so. But unless that is done, the POV that Jesus was real is being presented, and needs to be balanced. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nativity can be celebrated whether it is fictional or not. Homestarmy 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly true. If you want to add that Jesus was a myth, be my guest. — coelacan talk — 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would I need to add that? The celebration of anything has no dependency at all on whether the pretense of the celebration is valid or not, it merely depends on whether people are actually willing to celebrate it. Therefore, I don't see why there needs to be a sentence concerning historical opinion on Jesus's existance at all. Homestarmy 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implicit in the paragraph is the POV that Jesus was real. A mention that his historicity is not universally accepted is therefore required. I've explained this thoroughly already. Read WP:NPOV if you are unfamiliar with it. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  historicity language 

message: Quote - "1987 - In one of the highest-rated episodes in Coronation Street history, Hilda Ogden leaves her home of 23 years to be a char to her doctor in the country."
Is this of particular significance?  I've never seen a Date Page list significant television episodes, do we honestly need to document events that took place on a British Soap Opera here? 198.53.176.173 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it; it would take a lot to convince me that event was on par with anything else in that list. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coronation Street?

message: Add James Francis "Pud" Galvin to list of births for December 25th.
(December 25, 1856 – March 7, 1902)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pud_Galvin
Breens2 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added, Jons63 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 25th birth 

message: 1950 - Yehuda Poliker, the goodest musician ever
Someone should fix that?
--70.137.178.47 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for the suggestion.  Jons63 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description Edit, maybe 

message: "The queens annual Christmas address is made available on internet site YouTube." how can this be considered significant enough to be on this article. I am removing it. If you want to restore it, please go ahead but please tell me why below. --Smallbig/Anonymous101 on Wikinews 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's supposed to be notable because it's the first time it's ever been done on an internet video site, in the 50 years of the Christmas address. Not exactly world changing though is it? I'd say you were right to remove it. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not notable.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it should be handled the same way that King George V's first aired Christmas address is handled.  That is, one line in the article about the Queen.  King George V's address is more notable than the Queen's current address.  It was the first that more than the people able to go to the address were able to hear.  This is just a new way of broadcasting the message, nothing exceptionally notable about that.    Jons63 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The queens annual christmas address 

message: *Jamiemillar says:
why is Jesus not allowed to be in the timeline?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemillar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a reliable source that says that he was born on December 25th?  I can find plenty of sources that say his birth is celebrated on that date, but not a single one that says he was born on then.  Unless there are reliable sources that say it, the information does not belong under the birth section.  The celebration is listed in the Holidays and observances section since it is the holiday that observes his birth.  ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible says nothing about Dec 25, and as far as I know, biblical interpretations suggest he was born in Spring or Fall/Autumn (Shepherds out in their fields, etc) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Just to add, some churches celebrate christmas in January – see Christmas#Date of celebration. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus

message: Obviously there is much discussion as to whether Jesus of Nazareth should be mentioned under births or not and as to the exact year to be assigned to this birth.  I suggest we create a heading for all discussion regarding this topic divided into the following subtopics: "Inclusion of Jesus of Nazareth under Births", "Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth", "Formatting of date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth".
Although I do not wish for people's comments to be censored or altered, I believe there is much redundancy in these topics (largely due to disorganization) so I would like to propose consolidation of arguments, again, for the reason to facilitate future discussion and to make the page more readable.
Please delete my comments and this heading once these changes are made to the discussion page to further my goal of making this page less cumbersome.PENJrAV8R (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need any more discussion of Jesus at all. To include the birth of Jesus, all we would need is a reliable source, and there aren't any - not even the Bible claims he was born on Dec 25. We also should not re-arrange this page, as Talk pages are kept in date sequence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is to propose clean-up of the discussion page (specifically on the topic of Jesus), not whether or not this topic needs inclusion, your comment is itself discussion of the topic, which would be placed in an appropriate section under my proposition.  My point is that this discussion page has grown very messy, is not chronologically accurate, and is very difficult to navigate. PENJrAV8R (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But we do not clean up or structure Talk pages into sections - they are kept however people added to them at the time, as a historical record of what was discussed and when (as can be examined in the edit history) - old sections can be archived as they get older. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion page needs organized/condensed 

message: 1989 – Nicolae Ceauşescu, former communist President of Romania and his wife, First-Deputy Prime-Minister Elena are condemned to death and executed after a flawed and summary trial.
Is it NPOV to call a trial flawed? I'm sure supporters of the guy think so, and opponents don't, so can this be reworked in a way that doesn't side with one view or the other? Any perceived flaws would be better discussed on the page for the guy or the trial itself (if it has a page) where they can be properly cited. 76.226.140.232 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. While leftists might have trouble with the form and conclusion of the revolutionary tribunal that occurred, that is strictly a subjective point of view. Many feel these two had justice served.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry doesn't sound NPOV 

message: I am aware that the scope of Christmas is very wide, but it should be noted that not all countries celebrate it. I was thinking that simply "Gregorian Calendar" or "Most countries" might be appropriate. What does Wikipedia think? --Marianian(talk) 22:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally recognizable without qualification in the English speaking world and since this is the English Wikipedia, no adjustment is needed.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I would put money down that in EVERY country, there are some individuals that celebrate it, even if they are a small but notable minority.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, how would we able to tell from the Julian version? There's a risk of confusion there. I am only concerned about the actual article, not the "Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page" bit. --Marianian(talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Day = International? 

message: Adding time elements (at night) and (on Dec 26) to the entry for Washington crossing the Delaware is unnecessary to understanding what the event was. That's all we're trying to do here. It's in the reader's best interest to keep these entries as succinct as possible for scanning. IMHO, of course. 
I do believe that describing the Hessians as "mercenaries" is inappropriate, in that the army was hired en masse. The individuals did not sign on to be paid to fight for the British. They were not mercenaries as the word is commonly understood. A word like "forces" or "soldiers" would be a nice substitution. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the crossing started on one date and ended on another, adding the details makes clear that the crossing was started on the night of December 25 and finished on December 26, when the Battle of Trenton took place. This helps to avoid confusion with the reenactment, which take place during the day and Leutze's painting, which also appears to be during the day. It is consistent with the overview section of the main article. It was as brief as possible, yet designed to help readers from possible misunderstandings. I agree with using "forces" rather than "mercenaries". Zeete (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington crossing the Delaware 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne   <-- first "Holy Roman Emperor" crowned on Xmas day in 800 A.D. - very important!  98.67.177.30 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there is some sort of "ineligible" blurb about this - the date of the coronation has been cited in the article - see Coronation section.  This is certainly more important than some random tiger attack that occurred in 2007! HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Charlemagne article for Christmas Day anniversary

message: I removed Ben Breedlove from this page and added him to December 24 as his Wiki page states he passed away on the 24th. --NickBurrus (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Breedlove 

message: Dear John,
I answered the doorbell this morning and the postman delivered to me a partridge in a pear tree.  What a delightful gift. I couldn't have been more surprised.
With warm wishes for a very merry Christmas,
Agnes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.177.161 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve Days of Christmas 

message: Since a great deal of the historical events listed are pre-Gregorian calendar, should this be stated in the article? In a similar vein to the January 1 article should we section the historical events off into Julian/Gregorian? After all the coronation of Charlemagne and many of the other Medieval kings were specifically on Christmas Day in the Julian calendar, which was not December 25th in Gregorian as we know it today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Gregorian December 25th 

message: I came to this article looking for the interesting significance of this date to a succession of religions (and how/why each new religion inherited the date from a previous one), but such a section is missing.   The nearest I found was in this talk page, buried in an NPOV section:
Why has Dec 25th been important thru the ages? Just after the Winter Solstice, December 25th is when the day starts to become noticeably longer. It is the date seen as the birth/rebirth of the sun.
A few of the Gods born on December 25th of a virgin, who died and were resurrected.
- Attis of Phrygia
- Mithra of Persia
- Dionysus
- Horus
- Krishna
- Zoroaster
- Jesus
Written by User:AlwaysNeutral.   Can Someone (perhaps @AlwaysNeutral?) create a section in this article covering this (preferably in chronological order)?  Or (if there is a lot of material) create a separate article: December 25th Religious Significance.  It could possibly include the Puritan banning of Christmas celebrations in England and Wales (and possibly Scotland) see https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/heritage-highlights/did-oliver-cromwell-really-ban-christmas/ 
Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section needed: Religious significance of December 25