Talk:Christmas/Archive 3

message: The Christmas holiday has nothing to do with Christ.  I would like to cite the historical section of our artical which clearly illustrates that the holiday was and is Pagan, not Christian.  By continuing to mislead people, that Jesus has anything to do with that holiday you are attempting to rewrite history and that is not our job.
I would suggest that the article start off saying something to the effect:
Christmas is a "[Christianized] term" for a traditional holiday practiced by many cultures throughout the world.
I think that would be a more accurate opening.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 November 2006  (UTC)
: Clearly, Christ and Christianity are very important to Christmas, so this suggestion can't realy be taken seriously. MightyAtom 02:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment indicates one of the major challenges of this article...neutrality. It seems everyone wants to own Christmas. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 04:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is verifiability. There are no sources that define Christmas as what the original poster suggested. Every source imaginable (i.e.- encyclopedias, dictionaries, other notables) desribes the holiday as being the celebration of the birth of Jesus, with various secular aspects. Although the secular aspects often dominate the celebration of the holiday, this is why they are called "aspects"; they are methods of celebration. One does not just "stare at a picture of Jesus" to celebrate his birth, they enjoy each others' company, disperse gifts, and involve in various secular AND religious aspects. Some prefer only the secular aspects (sometimes ignoring Jesus' birth), some only the religious.— OLP 1999 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will find the middle ground, and say that every reputable source imaginable describes Christmas as a amalgamation of various pre-Christian holidays that were adopted/assimilated by Christianity, which where then further evolved across the centuries to include the secular and religous traditions of a wide variety of cultures which each contributed their own elements leaving us with a popular holiday that is celebrated by an imense mixture of people but which can be exclusively claimed by none.  To some people, Christmas is the birth of Jesus. To some people, Christmas is a season of giving. To some, it is an appreciation of family and traditions. To some people, it is a celebration of the Earth's continuing orbit around the Sun, and the end of Winter. To some, it is a romantic evening to share with a lover.  In this case, all are correct and absolutely none are wrong.  There is no "reason for the season," other than human beings have celebrated at this particular time of the year for roughly as long as there has been recorded history.  Celebrations on or about December 25th happened long before Jesus's birth, and will continue for the forseable future. Now, let's try and be inclusive and give everyone equal respect and acknowledgement for this important holiday. OK?MightyAtom 18:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed MightyAtom, and thanks for such a reasonable and eloquent summary of the situation. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *. These sources irrefutably reference the birth of Jesus as the opening statement and the definition of the holiday. The secular aspects are always secondary which thus suggests the birth of Jesus is the most documented main definition of this holiday. Sure, the secular version can have first paragraph mention but not the very first sentence.— OLP 1999 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Human beings have celebrated at this particular time of the year for roughly as long as there has been recorded history. Celebrations on or about December 25th happened long before Jesus's birth, and will continue for the forseable future." This statement is absolutely true. However, those midwinter celebrations were not and are not Christmas. Wikipedia has articles for all these festivals - Hannukah, Yule, Winter Solstice Festival, Saturnalia, etc. Some midwinter festivals predate Christmas by millenia. I understand that, more than the other festivals, Christmas has gradually taken on more and more secular aspects, and that for many people it is now a purely secular holiday. But its origins are still as a Christian religious festival. The fact that it is probably the most widely celebrated midwinter festival does not mean that all it is is a midwinter festival. Eron 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and no one is denying that it is a Christian holiday, just trying to present a balanced picture of its origins and observances. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some people are trying to deny it: "The Christmas holiday has nothing to do with Christ." That aside, I fully support a balanced picture that includes the secular aspects of the modern holiday, and the pre-Christian antecedents of many "Christmas" traditions. (We drag a great big evergreen tree into the house on the longest, coldest, night of the year, and hang lights all over it; how can anyone miss the pagan imagery?) Eron 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Well said. Just because someone decides the secular aspects of this holiday are more important or significant to them personally, does not mean they can rid of the Christian ties and origins of this holiday. If you really want to disconnect yourself from these ties, celebrate Winter Solstice or Yule. Alot of neo-Pagans do.— OLP 1999 06:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Goddess help me, I find that I have to agree with OLP... Christmas is, by definition, originally and always a Christian holiday. Yes, it happens that it coincides with alot of winter celebrations, and by no accident that, but it is still a Christian holiday. I observe Yule on the 21st-22nd, not Christmas. BUT I do attend festivities on the 25th with my family while THEY observe Christmas.
Let's stop all the bashing and bouts of political correctness before the Christian commenters here have apoplexy. I will AGREE that the first paragraph should be ONLY about Christ and His birth and Christmas. HOWEVER, the second paragraph should point out that the Christians intentionally placed Christmas to coincide with the Pagan festivals, thereby continuing a policy they used over and over. Embrace, engulf, devour and then kill the few old believers that are left by calling the local gods and goddesses demons when the previous year they were sharing sacred space with the local worshippers.
BTW, it is fairly certain the historical Jesus, if he existed and if the stories about "shepherds in the fields sleeping with their flocks" are correct, Jesus was born in the spring, during birthing season, as this is the only time in that part of the world that the shepherds would have been sleeping in the fields with their flocks. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 07:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to agree with many posters here 

message: This section has been vandalised in the etymotoly and the history sections.  I do not have an account and don't really know how this all works but just thought I'd give a heads up.  Maybe it should be moderated (as I've seen with other sections...some people need to grow up)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.168.12 (talk • contribs) 
Hi, thanks for noticing our little vandalism problem. This page has been protected now, so things should settle down. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Recently this was added "The holiday has also been vastly adopted by non-Christians as a secular winter festival, namely in Hong Kong and the PRC whereas there are small Christian populations."
I added Japan to this list, as it is a common holiday in Japan, but I am curious about the others.  As far as I know, South Korea is the only East Asian country to recognise Christmas as a public holiday, and Chinese Christmas celebrations are largly an importation of the Japanese secular version.  There is no link between Chinese Christian populations and the celebration of Christmas.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/25/content_403184.htm
MightyAtom 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, Hong Kong's inclusion is verified. As for the PRC, the same section also mentions that secular Christmas customs and traditions are becoming more prominent in China due to Western influence. As for whether Chinese Christmas celebrations are an importation from Japan, it makes no difference. The fact that it is celebrated as a secular winter festival with no Christian connotations is really the point. I think there is merit for inclusion of all three examples.— OLP1999 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really more inclined to keep the lead clear of too much specific detail. This is a long article and there is a lot of space below the TOC to detail particular areas of the globe where Christmas is celebrated one way or another. I'm not sure we need to list specific countries in a general introductory statement that Christmas is celebrated more-or-less everywhere. When I wrote of non-Christians adopting Christmas as a secular festival, I was thinking just as much of my Canadian atheist friends who put up trees as I was of Chinese or Koreans. - Eron 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But mentioning entire countries that have very minute Christian populations as examples helps to support the theory that Christmas is vastly celebrated in a wholly non-religious manner. A Canadian atheist celebrating it might be expected to do so since Canada has a large Christian population, and is rich in Christmas culture and other Christian traditions. Also, it is likely that a Canadian atheist would have close ancestral relatives (as close as parents or grandparents) who were/are Christian due to lower atheist populations in the recent past. I wouldn't disagree with its removal, but think it helps support the secular celebratory theory— OLP1999 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we definitely need to describe the observance of Christmas in countries like China, and try to explain why and how it came to be. I just don't think we need to do it in the introduction. Eron 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, Christmas worldwide... it needs a bit of work too. -Eron 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japan, South Korea, and to a lesser extent in China, Christmas is a girlfriend/boyfriend holiday. Think Valentine's Day + New Year's Day + Santa Claus. I've never seen any explanation of how it happened. The phenomenon is even more bizarre when you consider that South Korea is nearly half Christian, yet it is the Japanese (non-Christian) version of Christmas that they celebrate. If any of these countries are mentioned, it should be Japan. Japan is the trend setter and Christmas is certainly more popular there than in China.Kauffner 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian Christmas?

message: Congratulations to everyone for their work on this article so far!  It is good to have lots of points of views here, and I think we are getting a much more balanced article.  A major next step for us should be to work on getting inline citations and solid references up for a lot of this.  What do you think? MightyAtom 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We appear to have lots of shiny new  tags at the moment. A round of cites and refs is probably in order. Doc  Tropics 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I'm having a problem with a certain phrase in the introduction. Though a small issue, I think it needs to be fixed because the introductory sentences of an article are essential to the entire article as they fully summarize the contents and the article's subject. I don't like how the phrase "It is traditionally observed on 25 December." ends abruptly with a period, and then is followed by the same subject matter, "Eastern Orthodox Churches celebrate it on 7 January, which corresponds to 25 December of the Julian calendar". I think we need to rewrite this portion or at least get rid of the period after 25 December. It rings too much like a sentence fragment and though it would be permissible later in the article, I think the introduction needs to be able to be read easily and smoothly. Any comments or suggestions?— OLP1999 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the intro is really clumsy.  Plus it uses the word "traditionaly" twice in a row. Yikes!  MightyAtom 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, that's a bit clumsy! Full agreement here. Doc  Tropics 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: WONDERFUL changes, MightyAtom. I tweaked a few things like spelling errors and capitalization but the changes were great and very well appreciated. I think your newly written introduction is closest to perfection this article has ever seen. Great job!— OLP1999 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding work. I think it's excellent, and the fact that OLP does too is practically exhilirating. Atom's new version is very impressive, and so is this new-found spirit of co-operation. The wiki-way seems to have really worked out here : ) Doc  Tropics 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice work on the intro. Eron 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro. issue 

message: Just letting someone know that the polsih "santa" is Święty Nikołaj not Mikołaj.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38 66.71.44.107 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for pointing that out; it's fixed now. Doc  Tropics 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  slight typo 

message: This section seems to lack any text that connects any of the mentioned former pagan feasts to Christmas, such as how Christmas came to be on December 25 and how these holidays affected that decision, as well as what aspects of these holidays were borrowed to be included in the celebration of Christmas. As of current, the section seems to only be explaining what these holidays were about and when they occurred, not the story (or theory, perhaps) between their relation to Christmas. Could anyone, perhaps MightyAtom, make some clarifications on this and make it clear as to what connections these holidays have to Christmas?— OLP1999 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I suspect that those of us who worked on the section are so accustomed to taking the connections as a given, that we focused on the the details of "what came before" without providing specific text and evidence for the later intertwining. Also, that section has been edited, cross-edited, and vandalised so many times it's difficult to keep it coherent at all. Since Mighty Atom has done such a stellar job so far, I'm more than happy to volunteer him for this mission : ) Doc  Tropics 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone through and given the section an amount of organization it was lacking before this but it could still use some work. :bloodofox: 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pre-Christian origins" issue 

message: Can some please discuss about Christmas Lanterns? It is how Christmas is being symbolized in the Philippines. John earlm 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a local custom, that is probably covered in Christmas customs in the Philippines. - Eron 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christmas Lanterns

message: An IP editor dropped this link into the "Reformation" section. That's wouldn't be the right place given the info this includes, so I brought it here for discussion:
* See http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/chrmass.html
I briefly reviewed the site and I'm a bit dubious about it. It is on "Angelfire" which is a free webhost; therefore this isn't much more than an essay. I didn't want to delete it outright, but I think others should review it carefully before including it. Doc  Tropics 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brother, can you spare a link?

message: I can't help too much, having two major projects as well, but could you use a hand? Adam Cuerden talk 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to join in; we could probably use a bit of help, especially with cites : ) Doc  Tropics 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been a lot of activity here recently; I didn't actually realize that so many refs had been added. I agree with your suggestion for a single statetment, but I'm disappointed about Bill O'Reilly; so many juicey quotes : ) Doc  Tropics 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think adding them right into the article is fine. It provides extra incentive to actually find the references. - Eron 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You've been doing good work Eron; I've mostly been vandal-whacking : ) Doc  Tropics 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing up

message: I've cut back the section on modern concerns about secularization; it still has a fact tag, as it turns out that objective reports on what is or is not happening - or reports on what people think is or is not happening - to Christmas are hard to come by. Everything I've found so far seems to be either a right-wing fundamentalist comment on the War on Christmas, or a left-wing secular humanist comment that the War on Christmas is just a myth. I could try to triangulate these to come up with an NPOV statement, but I'm worried that could stray into OR territory.
In other secular news, the infobox lists "Winter Holiday" as an alternate name for Christmas; that name is linked to the Christmas controversies page. Is there any evidence that anyone, anywhere, actually calls Christmas "Winter Holiday" (as opposed to Xmas, or Christ's Mass, which are the other two listed names)? If not, I think that needs to be removed. - Eron 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never actually heard someone say "Happy Winter Holiday", but people do say "Happy Holidays" as an alternative to "Merry Christmas", and U.S. schools more often refer to "the holiday season" than "the Christmas season". Of course, that's all OR, too : ) Doc  Tropics 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly recommend that you both check out the Spring holiday article, which cites various instances of the Easter holiday (and Good Friday) being replaced with "Spring holiday" on the calendar, namely in schools, government calendars, mall Easter promotions, etc. Some of those cites also mention "Winter holiday" replacing "Christmas Day" in the same situations. Not exactly proof of widespread usage of the term "winter holiday" but it certainly isn't OR.— OLP1999 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, good work! I'll try to incorporate some of those. Doc  Tropics 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but upon closer inspection, unfortunately that one cite that I added is now defunct; argh I hate when news websites do that. Anyhow, to verify the instance I'm talking about you can check this blog I found on the subject, but blogs are hardly sufficient for referencing so I'll remove the cite now and remove the "Winter holiday" designation until I (may be able to) find another cite. Thanks for the co-operation, Doc Tropics, and I'm glad you're willing to help.— OLP1999 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Doc. Sorry for the delayed response, I was doing an extensive rewrite to the introduction at Christmas controversies. I understand your concerns about the ref in the Infobox, and am not entirely sure if there's a guideline concerning that matter. If you like, we can remove it for now, as I'm not sure where we could fittingly place it elsewhere. Perhaps, as well, I'll make an attempt at seeing as to whether we could change the number (#) placement of this ref.— OLP1999 07:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I look at it, the more it just bugs me to see the numbers apparently out of sequence; no doubt this reveals some character flaw on my part. I guess I'd like to remove the ref for now, but keep the info (because we know we have a ref for it), until we get a pointer on how it should be handled. BTW - your response was speedy by WP standards : ) Doc  Tropics 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone actually use Winter Holiday as a replacement for Christmas? When I worked in retail, the term Winter holiday season was used as a catch-all to include Solstice, Yule, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Teng Chieh, Diwali, Soyal, Las Posadas, Zagmuk the birth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster  anything else anyone wanted to celebrate at the time, but never as an actual replacement term for Christmas.   Granted, I haven't been in the US for a long time, and even longer since I worked retail, but...MightyAtom 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I think "winter holidays" is a term for the whole period of time when schools are closed, people take time off work, etc.; more the season of Christmas than the holiday itself. I don't think we can say that it is an alternate term for Christmas Day. (Oh, and purely anecdotally, my children's 100% secular school board refers to their upcoming two-week holiday as the "Christmas Break" so it looks like the tide of creeping secularism has been stemmed, at least in Ottawa.) - Eron 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed; one of my concerns with the creeping-secularism content of this article was that it seemed to be purely from an American perspective. Eron Talk 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More secularism

message: I've removed the reference to Christmas first being referred to as xmas in 1173, and replaced it with verbiage indicating it has been in use since the mid-sixteenth century.  The citation previously listed was to Oxford English dictionary, however I could find no Oxford article confirming the 1173 date.  I did, however find this statement: "...XMAS has been used as an abbreviation since the mid-sixteenth century" at this address .  I have changed verbiage to reflect this timeframe and the citation to lead to the exact URL above.  71.36.191.213 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I saw your change, then I noticed that the original OED ref wasn't valid at all, so I removed the lot. It looks like you changed the text but not the ref; hence my confusion. I'll sort this out and match them all up. Thanks for the useful link. Doc  Tropics 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agh, I think we're going in circles around each other doc!  You caught me in mid-edit, before I actually executed my citation change; hence the discontinuity between what you saw and what I said.  I'll just leave this in your hands, looks like you've been around this article for a while.  I just researched it for my curiousity and figured I'd add a bit of knowledge to the article, as well as cleanup an obvious error people wouldn't catch unless they did a bit of looking into the #4 citation link.  Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreydaj (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, we did stumble on each other, didn't we? How does it look now? I think that was what you wanted, right? Your ref was great, BTW! Always happy to have actual facts in the article : ) Doc  Tropics 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Xmas timeframe 

message: I can't comment on the timing of Orthodox Christmas, but there is much "traditional information" about people in the British Isles and the Southern United States celebrating Christmas on the date determined from the Julian calendar (January 6 or thereabouts), rather than the Gregorian calendar. Here's a link to a storyteller's website that tells the story pretty straight: http://www.pjtss.net/library/chuck/chuck14.htm . And another link: http://homepages.tesco.net/~jk.calisto/calisto/england/greg_change.htm . And a more citeable source: http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/ref/nchistory/dec2004/dec2004.html . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas on January 6 or 7 -- "Old Christmas" or Orthodox Christmas 

message: Hi everyone. Just read the history sections of this article and enjoyed it. Congratulations to everyone who has worked so hard on it. It struck me that the Medieval, Reformation, and Modern sections of this are England-centric (particularly the Reformation section). I was hoping to learn a bit more about Dutch and German traditions, for example, in getting a broader view of how Christmas changed after Roman times. Being new to this area, I don't know if this is considered to be covered elsewhere. Advice? HMAccount 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your observation; I think that as primarily English-speaking editors on the English Wikipedia, we've relied heavily on English language sources that give short shrift to non-British tradition. There is certainly scope to fix that, if sources can be found, as I'm sure they can. We don't seem to have a History of Christmas article, so I think this would be the place to do it. There may be some pointers to good sources at the Christmas worldwide article. - Eron Talk 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that more international info would help the article, but as EM pointed out, it presents some difficulties for English-language editors. I like the idea of a History of Christmas article; I think there is enough info to merit a page for it, which could then cross-link with this one. Doc  Tropics 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the entire History section of this page could be copied to a new article; we would just have to trim it back (fairly radically) to a short description, as with the Nativity. That's a significant revision and I think we would want consensus on the rewritten section. I've not worked on something like that before; would it be appropriate to create a sub-page to this talk page to work on a draft of a reduced history section? - Eron Talk 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I assume we are going to work on History of Christmas at that page, right? On that assumption, I've created User:EronMain/Christmas - History to work on trimming back this article's history section in anticipation of a new main article. - Eron Talk 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More international view in history sections 

message: There's been a lot of good work done on this article by a lot of editors in recent weeks. I think we are slowly dragging it back towards Featured Article readiness. Are we ready to submit it for a peer review? I think some fresh eyes on the page would be a big help to point out things we might be missing. - Eron Talk 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the previous concerns had been refs, which I think is now resolved. I'm not sure the article is quite up to FA yet, but agree that we need some 3rd party input at this point. Peer review sounds reasonable; will you inititate it? Doc  Tropics 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as I figure out how ;) - Eron Talk 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I was hoping you knew, because I've never done it : ) Doc  Tropics 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. There was a minor complication caused by the old peer review, but that's been overcome. And we even have our first comment! I'm not sure I understand what that comment means, but it's a start. - Eron Talk 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, well done! I have no idea what the comment about "See also" means...we follow standard MOS guidelines for that section. Doc  Tropics 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: The first response at this article's review suggested that (in keeping with the MOS we need to remove items from the "See also" section which are already linked in the article. I made a pass through the text and weeded out several, but I probably missed some. Would someone else take another look? Doc  Tropics 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went and weeded out about three of them.  If it is a problem, we can probably find ways to work many of them into the text as well, instead of just linking them at the bottom. MightyAtom 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From MOS, a relevant word or phrase should be linked the first time it appears, but not thereafter (paraphrased). The only thing I'm not clear about is the infobox itself. Does it count as "first appearance", or does the link rule only apply in the body of the text? I guess it's time to go digging through the MOS again  : ) Doc  Tropics 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't change it, but I believe the person that did just said it was unnecessary and POV.  We didn't say "The Jesus myth," so why put "the Santa Claus myth". MightyAtom 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't touch that, although a few days ago I did soften a bit of the text in the Santa Claus section. (Look, I have kids, okay? I'm a big softie.) I actually think we can dispense with "the arrival of" from that sentence. - Eron Talk 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Checklist is a definite necessity.  Personally, I favor "the arrival of Santa Claus," but thats just because I too am a big softie...MightyAtom 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, general agreement here too - remove "arrival", keep "myth" out. Checklist would be great.  Doc  Tropics 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: We've had some back-and-forth insertion of the text "some muslims celebrate Christmas because they regard Jesus as one of the great (Ulu’l-azm) prophets" (or similar versions). The latest insertion included a reference that supported the respect accorded Jesus by Islam, which I certainly do not dispute. The problem is that we have no references showing that muslims "celebrate" Christmas. If there are any references to support that statement, it can certainly go back in. - Eron Talk 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually had some extended discussion on this topic previously, with a Muslim editor. He assured me (and provided some credible refs from the Sharia) that Islam acknowledges Jesus' status as a prophet and respects him accordingly, but it is against fundamental teachings (and even court rulings) to celebrate the birthday of a prophet. I had originally wanted to include the material on the basis of NPOV, but he convinced me that it's either a fabrication, or taken out of context and distorted. The discussion and refs are in the archives (probably late Oct. - early Nov. somewhere). Since then I've been removing the material (it pops up fairly often) because the part that is verifiable isn't relevant to the article, and the part that's relevant is not only unverified, but strongly disputed. I suggest we continue removing it until solid and very specific refs are provided to support it. Doc  Tropics 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One reference I found stated "Another point regarding the Christmas season is the position of Jesus (PBUH) in Islam. If Christmas represents a feast of celebration of the birthday of Jesus, then we should observe it according to the Islamic principles and honor Jesus as a prophet of God. Christmas trees and fairy tales of Santa Claus should have nothing to do with such celebrations." (emphasis added). I think there may be some confusion between "recognizing" the birth of a prophet, and "celebrating" the holiday of Christmas. All signs indicate that some muslims may do the former, but not the latter. - Eron Talk 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas and Islam 

message: A peer reviewer has suggested that we revise the opening sentence: The opening sentence needs to be rephrased. For now it reads "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual Christian and secular[1] holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus," which suggests that Christian or secular, all people celebrate the birth of Jesus.
I know that a lot of people worked hard on that one sentence but... I see his point.
I propose a minor adjustment: "Christmas or Christmas Day is an annual Christian and secular holiday. For Christians, it marks the birth of Jesus Christ; for both Christians and non-Christians the holiday celebrates themes such as family, goodwill, giving and compassion." 
I also think we can drop the reference tag on secular; the whole article provides numerous references to the secular nature of the holiday, and that particular reference is included elsewhere. (And yes, I've expanded "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ." I think we can use the full name once, just so no one confuses him with anyone else.) - Eron Talk 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence was a major compromise.  I think the adjusted sentence is good, and am all for it.  The reference tag was added mainly as a safety measure.  The secular information had gotten removed so often, it needed a solid reference attached to it to make it edit-proof. MightyAtom 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the proposed version scans better (much better), and the ref tag is no longer necessary. I believe that the usage of Jesus Christ for an initial clarification should be acceptable as well. Doc  Tropics 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies on my part that I should have used "non-Christians", but usually people of non-Christian religions wouldn't celebrate the Christian holiday of Christmas so I assumed the non-Christian celebrants were mostly atheist, agnostic, or other non-specific religions. But nonetheless, the holiday of "Christmas" itself was engineered to honor (whether as a divine or historical figure) the birth of Jesus, regardless of its pagan origins. If non-Christians want to celebrate Yule that's a different story, but if you call it Christmas, Christ's Mass, I think we need to acknlowledge that it is an honor of Jesus' birth.— OLP1999 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you OLP. I think the first paragraph is an exceptionally well-written and well-balanced introduction to the topic. While I respect your opinions, I really don't think that what you're suggesting would be an improvement. Doc  Tropics 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the giver of gifts to children (Santa Claus, Papa Noel, Kris Kringle, Father Yule) predates the Christianization of the winter festival in most traditions. Some names got changed a little along the way, but gift giving at Yule/Winter Solstice is an old idea. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rudolph Rulz!!! --Doc  Tropics 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: Para 3, first sentence. This has two refs, but #14 seems to be circular (go to the ref section and click on one the the links associated with #14, they all lead back into the article), and #15 is more of a translator's note than an actual ref. I'm going to try finding a valid ref so we can remove those confusing little bits. Doc  Tropics 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's my fault; I probably deleted a named reference when I tidied that section up. I know what I did so I'll go back and try to fix it. Sorry about that. - Eron Talk 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out it wasn't really my fault. When we were playing whack-a-mole with vandals earlier today, one of them deleted the whole Etymology section... and we didn't notice. That section included a rather important named reference (the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Christmas) which was referred to in several other places. I've restored the section, and the refs seem to have worked themselves out. - Eron Talk 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That's really good , because the only ref I found was in Latin...not so useful. Next time I catch a vandal on this page I'm gonna...*grumble*..*grumble*... Doc  Tropics 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Christmas

message: What happened to that section?  Did it get wiped out in a vandal attack and not restored?  Did it get removed for a reason?  It is pretty important! MightyAtom 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it certainly wasn't removed by consensus. Yes, that section is important and should be restored. Good catch; I can't believe what the vandals have been able to get away with : ( Doc  Tropics 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I must have been asleep. Thanks for finding "Economics" again. What would you think about placing it one rung lower, so that "Christmas tree" and "Regional customs" stay together? I think it would make for better flow, and seems internally consistent. Doc  Tropics 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I've been staring at the ToC for a few minutes, and I can see both sides. On the one hand, transitioning from 20th century history to economics is very logical, and would seem to give it a good "flow". But on the other hand (and you knew there was another hand coming, right?), I strongly suspect that what our "average" reader will want to see first is the celebratory material, including the Nativity. I guess we should be satisfied that at least the history sections come first, and leave it as-is : ) Doc  Tropics 05:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics of Christmas?

message: I have rewired the opening sentence to provide a more clean, NPOV and OR–free description of Christmas traditions, customs, and so forth. The former rewiring that had descriptions of exactly how Christians or non-Christians celebrate the holiday is not acceptable for Wikipedia—we have no evidence that all Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus at Christmas (Jehovah Witnesses, as a counter-example), or that all non-Christian persons choose not to honor the birth of Jesus (I am non-Christian, and I, along with enjoying secular activities, honor Jesus' birth non-religiously during Christmas; he was a historically notable and empowering person). We must merely present the facts of the holiday, how it is traditionally celebrated, and what it was designed to acknowledge or celebrate. The Catholic church designated this holiday as a "celebration", (or honoring) of the birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth, the historical person. Thus, whether from a Christian or secular viewpoint, Christmas honors the traditional birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth. Your beliefs on whether this person is the "son of God" or not has nothing to do with this. Jesus was a virtually undisputed historical person and it is certainly possible to acknowledge this secularly, as does Martin Luther King Day honor that man's birthday. Think of it this way: as opposed to Jesus' resurrection (Easter), his birth (Christmas) is not a religious or supernatural event. Christmas simply honors the birth of this historic and very popular carpenter. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: If some of you believe strongly enough that the secular side of Christmas should not be labeled under "honoring the birth of Jesus" (though that is a secular observance), then it would be a good idea to offer some suggestions on how to present these two ways of celebrating Christmas separately in the article, rather than assuming that all non-Christians do not honor the birth of Jesus while all Christians choose to celebrate his birth—which is how the former introduction was worded. We need to realize that this holiday was engineered by the Catholic church to honor the birth of Jesus, so that obviously comes first in the intro. But what we also need to decide is whether the increasing amount of people who solely celebrate Christmas' secular aspects are still honoring the birth of Jesus—something that I believe is true, as an agnostic myself, simply because there is no other "reason" for Christmas; gift-giving and goodwill cannot be a definition for a holiday. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new opening is pretty good. I agree that eliminating references to how (or even if) Christians and non-Christians celebrate Christmas is probably wise. I have two minor wording points. First, I'd like to change "honors the traditional birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth," to "marks the traditional birthdate." There will always be some opinionated obstreperous independent-minded editors who will say that many people who do Christmas don't "honour" Jesus or his birth. "Mark" simply means that we have a holiday on that day with that name because of that person (cf. Valentine's Day). Second, I'd change "Christmas incorporates Christian religious ceremonies..." to Christmas combines..." I just think that's a more precise way to put it. - Eron Talk 13:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestions, they definitely would make things clearer. I'll incorporate them now; thanks for your comments and co-operation.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I go to sleep for a few hours, and look what happens! I had thought the previous intro was quite good, but the new one is even better. I agree that it is now more neutral and less POV. Really good work : ) Doc  Tropics 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I apologize for having bluntly changed the intro. without first adequately discussing the issue here, but then again, the WP:BOLD policy has to come into play sometimes, haha :). Don't misunderstand my intent, though, I really appreciate all the work that several of you have accomplished on the article, it really looks a LOT better than it did when I left on my long wikibreak in August. Since I'm back at the Wiki until Christmas I hope to work closely with all of you on this and various other articles and I hope we can co-operatively decide what changes are appropriate! Thanks again for the warm appreciation of my blunt changes. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Crazy, I've seen your name around wiki a lot, but never worked with you before; I'm looking forward to it. I suspect that some of us have been puttering with this article for so long that it's hard to make objective evaluations about it. Your initial changes were a significant improvement, and I'm sure your participation will be a great asset. In addition to polishing the article in the hopes of getting it to FA, we're facing a real challange just keeping it coherent because of the high levels of both well-intentioned but non-productive edits, as well as blatant vandalism and random deletions. Your help will certainly be appreciated : ) Doc  Tropics 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm looking forward to resuming contributing at Wikipedia :). — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening rewiring 

message: Blink and the article's changed. Before there was a paragraph explaining the connection between the pagan holidays and Christmas, but that's been taken out. It's no longer obvious why the subsection on say, Saturnalia, is still in the article. I'd suggest changing it back.
The theory that the date of Christmas was chosen to correspond with with the Sol Invictus festival is both widespreads and quite old. (Goes back at least to the Puritians.) But I do not think it is plausible. Sol Invitus was a minor festival (just one of the city of Rome's 160+ festivals a year), until Aurelian promoted an imperial holiday beginning in 274. December 25 was given as the date of the birth of Jesus by Africanus in 221.  Logically, the birth of Jesus has to be nine months after Incarnation. Incarnation as March 25 is a tradition that predates Africanus (not to mention Aurelian).Kauffner 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what the issue is; the content on the Incarnation, Africanus, Aurelian, et al, is still in the article. What is missing? - Eron Talk 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Kauffner, we have been doing a lot of work on this article in response to the peer review. One of the comments we had was that the annunciation/death of Jesus content didn't really seem to fit in, so it was cut back to keep the article more clearly focussed on Christmas. The part of the article dealing with December 25 is linked to the Annunciaton and Incarnation articles, which are probably better places to talk about integral dates and the death of Jesus being March 25. I won't revert right now as I'd like to hear your ideas about why that content should not be removed. Thanks. - Eron Talk 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read the review. The reviewer talks about "an entire paragraph on March 25 and Jesus' death." He doesn't mention the Annunciation or Incarnation and apparently didn't see the connection. I think the connection is clearer the way I have rewritten it.Kauffner 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I see that the December 24 - December 25 thing is raising its head again. I've taken out the "celebrated" in the statement of the date to try and head it off. I think that a mere glance at a calendar will make it clear that the date of the holiday called Christmas is December 25. That doesn't mean that everyone "celebrates" on that day. Different cultures have different ways of doing it, and some do place more emphasis on December 24. That can be, should be, and actually is, reflected in the body of the article. But that doesn't change the fact that the date of Christmas is still December 25. - Eron Talk 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is another ongoing issue. Since we clearly discuss the common variations like this in the body of the article, there is no need to mention it in the intro. I agree that we should keep it lean and clean. Doc  Tropics 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A fact that is only enhanced by the occurrence of Christmas Eve on December 24—that is, the eve prior to Christmas. So Christmas is definitely on December 25, any emphasis on other day(s) is purely cultural, and belongs in the lower paragraphs, not the intro.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I include a section on my friend, who celebrates Christmas with her extended family at (Canadian) Thanksgiving because her parents don't want to come back from Florida in December? - Eron Talk 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good addition, but maybe it would be better to add a section on Florida itself...it's one of the most popular U.S. holiday destinations. And after that, we could also mention that no sane person would want to leave Florida in December : ) Oh my, are we starting to lose our marbles? Doc  Tropics 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Starting?" - Eron Talk 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I am both a Cabalist and a vandal. Mom's gonna be so proud of me. - Eron Talk 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Christmas 

message: I've gone through looking at the use of AD. I think for the most part it isn't necessary; dates referring to the observation of Christmas itself must, by definition, be AD. I have retained one AD in the Sol Invictus section as that is not clearly an AD date. I've also kept one in at the start of the origin of Christmas section simply to ensure that readers start off in the right era; all subsequent dates in the section are listed chronologically and so should be clearly AD without the notation.
I'm going to take a look at parts of the text where we talk about this thing that happened (YEAR) and which led to another thing (YEAR). I think it flows much better if the years can be integrated into the text of the sentence. - Eron Talk 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I've been doing the "trivial" cleanup; about 100 duplicate links so far : ) Doc  Tropics 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years 

message: The second half of the article is a bit clogged with images. Unfortunately, none of them really relate to the first half, so just shuffling things around may not be enough. Of the images in question, we have two of "decorations in malls", one in Australia, one in Brazil, and that seems redundant. If we wanted to remove an image, I'd suggest we consider one of these. Since I don't know any Brazilian editors, but there are several Australians who might kick my butt, I would lean towards removing the Brazilian mall image. Alternatively, the image for "Harpers" U.S. Civil War Christmas doesn't really add much either. Doc  Tropics 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be contrary. The Harpers image illustrates the content about Thomas Nast's creation of the Santa Claus image; I'd actually lean towards removing the generic Santa Claus picture. As to the decorations, I think the Brazilian one is actually a better representation, what with the elves and Christmas trees and snow and such. The Australian one is pretty generic. (That said, there's a house a couple blocks away from me that has a truly insane array of Christmas lights, complete with Santa, reindeer, etc... perhaps I'll take a pic tonight and upload it.) - Eron Talk 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a contrary cabalistic vandal! I have to admit that I'm biased against the "Harpers" because I prefer color images when possible; I do see your point though. The Australian mall is fairly generic and would probably be the best choice if we need to cut one. If you wanted to add a new image, we might need to cut something else to make it fit, but we don't have anything showing a nicely decorated house...that could be a good addition. Doc  Tropics 20:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and move some of the images around. I'd like to see one picture to illustrate each section. I'll take a stab at it. - Eron Talk 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I'd like to see a good picture for each section as well, and if you like I can help you search for appropriate photos. If there's any picture in particular you're looking for just say the word.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, we need an image for the pre-Christian section, and here an editor has thoughtfully provided one that seems to fit. Serendipity in action? The mosaic is beautiful, too bad it has to be low-res; still, an excellent addition to that section. Doc  Tropics 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it a three–man consensus on the 3rd century mosaic; it does seem a good fit for the pre-Christianization sections.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Per MightyAtom's edit string comments, are there any administrators at our dispense that could semi-protect the page from new or anonymous users? If not, do you all think we should request that this article be semi-protected at Requests for Protection? The IP vandalism is becoming ever-more increased, probably because we're getting close to Christmas and all the anons want to alter the article. A semi-protect would be convenient and will cut down on the vandals.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT — Hehe, I see Doc Tropics is way ahead of me on this. Hopefully we can get it SP'd.. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to go teach my next class in a few minutes, so I happily surrender vandal protection for awhile.  Have fun!  Someone is being quite persistant at the moment...MightyAtom 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has a lot of watchers now, so no worries. I enjoyed the "Ho ho ho" edit sumaary : ) Doc  Tropics 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

message: One suggestion that came up at peer review has actually been mentioned before on this page as well; the addition of a controversy section. No question that there is enough material for it, but as I reviewed the article I realized something: apart from a couple of great movies, the 20th Century didn't do much for Xmas except to generate controversy. If you check the "20th century" section, you'll notice that moving the 'controversies' material to a seperate sec would leave it with only one paragraph - about a poorly documented footaball game. Should we consider turning that whole section into something like "20th century Christmas controversies" or similar? Then we could move all the stray bits about controversy,lawsuits and court decisions into it, and give a "main Article:" link to Christmas controversies. I'm not positive that this would be the right way to go, and I'd certainly like to hear other ideas, but at least this an option we might consider. Doc  Tropics 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a lot of the 20th century stuff could go to controversies, but I think we (and by we, I mean "hopefully someone other than me") should then find more info for the 20th century. The increasing secularization of Christmas which took place did cause controversy, but I think the trend itself can be objectively described, with suitable references to shopping mall Santas, Coca Cola, and NORAD HQ tracking Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. We (by which I mean... oh never mind) can also look at the increased globalization; Mighty Atom's story about Christmas coming to Japan, for example. And the 20th century, with movies and mass communication, is really what made Christmas an (almost) global event - and a primarily American version of Christmas, at that. - Eron Talk 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I reviewed the external links, and then gave them a good trimming. This article now has a lot of linked references; I personally don't believe it needs a lot of external links. It is such a broad topic that the possible number of links is overwhelming - there are just so many Christmas-related sites out there.
I looked at the guidelines for external linking before doing this, paying special note to the suggestions to avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article," "any site that misleads the reader by 
use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," "links mainly intended to promote a website," and "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." 
I removed the following links, for the reasons noted:
*History of the Origin of Christmas - A short history, replete with spelling errors. Not a better resource than this page, even now.
*The History of Christmas - History Channel site, already in the references.
*"A History of Christmas from the UCG" - POV pushing from the United Church of God, telling us about the nasty pagan origins of Christmas
*Encyclopaedia Britannica, Christmas - Britannica article, already in the references.
*Christmas in Hungary - Very specific; also contains numerous commercial links.
*Christmas in South America - Very specific; also contains numerous commercial links.
*Christmas in India - Very specific; we should perhaps use this as a reference but put the content in our article.
*Max Heindel, The Mystical Interpretation of Christmas, 1920. . - POV pushing from the mystical Rosicrucians - or at least I think that's what it is; I'm not sufficiently enlightened to get it all.
*Was Jesus Born on the 25th of December? - POV pushing from the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam.
If anyone thinks I've erred in removing any of these, please let me know why and I'll gladly put them back. - Eron Talk 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that! That area definitely needed cleanup! MightyAtom 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of external links, this guy User:West wikipedia is spamming lots of pages with his links to his earlyhistory.googlepage.com pages, which are trivialized histories with lots of error, not anything useful.  If he puts one back here, someone else deal with him for a while, as I'm getting tired of it. Dicklyon 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I cut the links, then we had a big rollback that reversed that edit (and several others I had made). They've been cut again. (And it was West wikipedia's addition of his link that prompted me to do the review. I'll be watching.) - Eron Talk 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was good work. I wanted to do it myself, but I'm already feeling like the Grinch because I've done so many reverts and deletions. I concur with your reasoning about these specific links, and I think we should rigorously review any new additions. Doc  Tropics 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I was wondering if people would be in support for adding a link to the following: History of the Origin of Christmas?  Please give your reasons as to why or why not.  Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it does not cite it's sources, doesn't add anything already in Wikipedia, the site is non-notable i.e. it hasn't been cited as an authority by other reliable sources and it's authors are completely unknown. In fact if I google for earlyhistory googlepages com I get nothing. Please read WP:WEB (under criteria), WP:RS (e.g. Non-scholarly sources) and WP:NOTABLE and ideally please solve this one link first before you start posting to all the other entries you've been trying to make. Ttiotsw 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ttiotsw. The linked page appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedic source, as do the similar "earlyhistory" links that have been added to other articles. This is not to imply that the material is necessarily incorrect or inaccurate, simply that it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Doc  Tropics 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question to add link

message: We had an edit that changed the opening from "Christmas or Christmas Day is..." to "Christmas Day, Christmas, or Xmas is..." I'm not sure this is appropriate. There is already a separate article on Xmas so adding that in bold to the opening may confuse matters. This article is about Christmas. (And for that matter, do we really need "Christmas Day"?) - Eron Talk 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I preferred the previous version which seems sufficient for the opening sentence. The extra addition clutters it a bit, and placing "Christmas Day" first contradicts the page's title. Since all the variations are mentioned later, it's not really necessary. Doc  Tropics 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xmas 

message: I realize that I should probably be "leaving well alone" when it comes to the introduction, since we've already worked hard on perfecting it. Actually, there had already been a decidedly perfect intro. until I came along, sorry again about that, but, I'm really an "introduction perfectionist" and you'll usually see me editing the introductions of many pages (though I do inner-content as well). I believe the intro. is essential to providing the reader with a smooth transition to the continuing dialogue without confusing them or throwing them off. Also, a perfect introduction certainly helps if we want Christmas to be a FA. BUT ... I also firmly believe in discussing any changes here. Although I already made them, I'll gladly revert them if anyone objects; I'm just trying to improve it. 
Onto the changes. Firstly, I re-organized the listing of the popular Christmas traditions, bunching Nativity scene and Christmas tree as "displays" and Christmas cards and gifts as "the exchange of". At the end of this sentence I inserted "the arrival of Santa Claus on Christmas Eve", which differs from the original by explaining Santa's role in the holiday. I was going to go one of two ways with Santa, the other was going to be "the Santa Claus myth" (or "story" in case any kids come to read, hehe). That one is less detail, but takes less space. So, I wonder what one you guys prefer? 
The next change is the replacement of "Christian religious ceremonies with traditions and customs..." with "the story of Jesus' birth with various secular traditions and customs...", which I believe fits better because the "religious ceremonies" wasn't specific enough in what type of ceremonies. The last change was just moving some words around and the replacement of "secular" with "Christmas". This was mainly done since I had added "secular traditions and customs" in an earlier sentence. So there you have it—I hope all of you agree with the changes but please, do discuss. Review them for yourself here. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (my Xmas) 12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to discuss your changes!  One quick note...we went with "religous ceremonies" instead of "the story of Jesus' birth" because that also encompased things like midnight mass, Nativity plays (which I am surprised there is not an article for!) Twelve-dish Christmas Eve supper and any other ceremonies/traditions that I may not be aware of.MightyAtom 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "religious ceremonies celebrating Jesus' birth"? (And hey, it gets "celebrate" back in the intro!) - Eron Talk 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflicts) Well, the intro really is important, so I don't think it can get too much attention. In general, your changes look good,  but I did make one alteration...I replaced "family togetherness" with quality family time. Personally, I prefer the way it scans in the second version, but it's a relatively minor point. If this usage is too "American" feel free to replace it. Doc  Tropics 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to all three of you for responding. I agree with all three of your comments, MightyAtom I agree that we need to encompass all the Christian religious ceremonies, EronMain I agree with your suggestion on how we can do that, and Doc I agree with your change, I certainly would've wrote it like that if I'd have thought of it. Thanks all for the positive responses. I'll add Eron's suggested change. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (my Xmas) 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New introduction changes by CIS 

message: Thinking ahead to a future controversies section, I have stuck a small piece on the commercialization of Christmas under the economics section.  I figure it might be easier to create these sections bit-by-bit, then merge them all under a controversies section when they are ready.  Anyways, take a look and please add anything that you feel is missing. MightyAtom 05:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good material, and good placement. I'm sure this section will get fresh tidbits fairly quickly :) Doc  Tropics 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercialization of Christmas

message: We've had some back and forth on the titles in the references section. I've reverted once but I'd like to resolve the matter here before doing so again.
The title above the list of inline citatition has been changed from "References" to "Notes", and "References" has been added above two books that were listed below the cites. The  manual of style states "'Notes' is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). 'References' is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise 'Notes and references' should be combined." In the case of Christmas, the citations are all references; I don't see any that are explanatory or commentary footnotes. Guidelines on citing sources are a little more muddy, but they also generally support this, noting "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be shown in a 'References' section following the text." 
I'm not opposed to cleaning up the References section; the guidelines on citation also say that "It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used...a 'References' section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used." We haven't got explanatory footnotes, but we do have a lot of references, and this might be helpful. However, I would recommend waiting until the current work on the page is done; there are two more sections that need a lot of referencing, and I think it would confuse things to change our reference style in the middle of that job. 
And on that note, the sections Regional customs and celebrations and Arts and media are completely without inline references. - Eron Talk 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Eron. Points taken. There are many styles of references/footnotes around WP. Best left for now as it is. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References