Talk:Christmas/Archive 1

message: Should “Christmas figures” be changed to “winter figures”?  Sleighs and snowmen aren’t necessarily Christmas in nature, but they are definitely winter-y in nature.  Also, should the mention of municipal legal battles be mentioned here as it is, or as a sub-set of “Decorations”, or in a totally different section dealing with “Christmas Religious/Secular Controversies” which could include court battles and John Gibson’s book “The War On Christmas” or the spat between Bill O’Reilly and The Daily Show, or stores greeting with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”, etc?BoomBox 10:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit "Decorations" section? 

message: I have requested that Christmas be the featured article (view the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article#Christmas (To be featured on December 25)). The article certainly deserves to be showcased. Don't forget to vote!
Brisvegas 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow's Featured Article? 

message: Actually, I think that there needs to be some kind of Liturgical year page or section somewhere -- to Christianity rather than to Christmas, though.  Also (and I am speaking for Michael without his authority) I think the objection is not to the use of 'papal propaganda', but the fact that you are misusing the term, because it has a very specific historical meaning.  In the general vein of being touchy, I know that I am particularly so whan an article does not address the purported subject, or when the conclusions drawn in the article have no basis in historical fact and/or method.  I guess that's the problem with open content -- you have enough people who care from a professional, as well as a personal, point of view, and we edit as if we were editing the work of our peers -- except that we're nicer on the wiki! JHK
:Does anyone fancy working on WikiProject Christian liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 10:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgical year page 

message: When the article says Eastern Orthodox celebrate on "the civil date of January 7", does that mean by the Gregorian or Julian calendar? If I suspect they mean the Gregorian calendar by "civil", what date do they celebrate it on by the Julian? (I understand they still set Christmas by the Julian.) In which case, we better give the Julian, not Gregorian date, since the Gregorian date will move over time, but the Julian date will remain the same forever (or at least until such time as the Eastern Orthodox decide to finally switch totally to the Gregorian calendar :) -- User:SJK
----
There are a couple more wrinkles to the Eastern Orthodox calendar here, and I only half understand them. One is that there's a third calendar involved called the Revised Julian Calendar, which was adopted by many Orthodox in about 1923. It's used by the Orthodox Church in America, among others. For the most part, it brings them into sync with the Gregorian Calendar so they both agree on when a given date occurs (no more 10 or 13 day differential), and it keeps the Spring Equinox on March 21. But they also calculate Easter according to the 325A.D. method, same as the Old Calendarists, so that all Orthodox still celebrate Easter on the same day, along with the movable feasts that are based on N days or Sundays before or after Easter.
Now with regard to Christmas in particular, this feast used to be combined with Theophany ("Epiphany" in the West?), which falls on January 6 and is all about Christ's baptism. In both feasts, Christ is revealed to the world, first simply by being born into it, in the second through the voice from Heaven and the blessing of the Holy Spirit acknowledging who He is, and also revealing God as three persons, since all three are present in that scene. At any rate, the date of Theophany on one calendar comes pretty close to the date of Christmas on the other; I suspect the time between them might be the famous "12 days of Christmas" though I'm not sure; guess I need to research this better.
Also with regard to Advent, the Orthodox observe a 40 day fast, sometimes called "Winter Lent", leading up to Christmas, or the Feast of the Nativity. It's not as strict as Great Lent which leads up to Easter, and exact fasting guidelines vary between jurisdictions.  --Wesley
Epiphany, on the 6th, is about 'Christ being revealed' by the presence of the wise men. There is the feast of the presentation at the temple, I forget what date. Christ's baptism is when John the Baptist baptises him as an adult. Not sure which of these corresponds to Theophany. The 12 days of Christmas is Boxing day to the 6th I think, unless it's Christmas day to the 5th. Certainly, Epiphany is the end of Christmas. Advent is traditionally a mini lent in the west too, but rarely treated as such and was never 40 days. Skittle 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox calendar 

message: what was december 25 originally, before it was appropriated by Christianity? Saturnalia? -- SJK
:Saturnalia was originally Dec. 17, later expanded to Dec. 17-23. You're thinking of the Sol Invictus festival, or "Rebirth of the Sun."
:I don't agree with the premise of your question, the idea that particular pagan holidays were "appropriated" by Christians. December 25 was considered the date of the winter solstice and more than one religion could independently decide to connect it's god to this astronomical event. Kauffner 08:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturnalia 

message: What on earth does
"Epiphany and Christmas were not made judicial non dies until 5~4."
mean? User:SGBailey 13:00 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)
:Judicial holidays. Anjouli 17:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial non dies 

message: Should the "He" and "His" referring to Jesus in this article be made with lowercase 'H'?  Seems like capitolizing it is not NPOV, and it is also kind of distracting.  The Jesus Christ article uses lowercase for the pronouns.
Perhaps your reliance on the precedent of the Jesus Christ is appropriate, but your appeal to NPOV is not.  Whether the pronouns are capitalized or not, they each (equally) display a point of view (whether Jesus Christ was God), IMHO Yoink23 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of "He" 

message: "In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrine the doctrine of men."  (Matthew 15:9) I feel explains it all.  I would not want Christ to assess  all I have done to worship Himand find out He classified all my attempts as vain.  The Bible offers 7 HOLYdays and a Weekly Sabbath to worship Jesus Christ properly.  
Look at like this:  You hire people to do a job, they decide not to do what you tell them and go ahead and do it their way.  Your work is not being done.  Do you keep those employees or fire them?  How do you think Christ feels about us "Doing it Our Way?"
Finally Christmas is a modern evolution of a pagan festival that came from Babalonia from the time of Nimrod.  It involves Nimrod who had a son, Tammuz, by him mother (whose name I cannot spell, Sin-a-ram-us.)  Any way, the back ground event is briefly as follows:  Nimrod was killed by Isrealites when he waged war to kill all who worshiped God.  At his death, the Isrealites chopped his body in to pieces and sent those pieces in opposite directions.  his mother/wife delcared herself god as Nimrod was now in heaven and will depart heavenly gifts upon his/her followers (Aka the Tree with Gifts) for the express purpose to destroy God's people on Earth.  The Yule Log is his body, a remembrence to hate God's people.  ** This stuff is in your public library, read it and learn the truth. **
Christmas is the exact opposit of what it poses to be.
: It really depends on how you define "your way". I would say, "employers" are different from each other. Some are more lenient when some are more stern. I would tend to believe Jesus is a lenient one according to Bible so his definition of "your own way" is loose. Also, if one date has to be picked to celebrate Jesus' birth, does it really matter if "pagans" use that day too if you believe there's but one god? There are many "paganisms" in this world and every day can be a pagan day then :-) O you close-minded Christian fundamentalists! Henrysh 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What library suggested the Yule Log and the Christmas Tree originated from Nimrod? The Yule Log is to do with keeping light and warmth (the fire) going unbroken through the darkest period. The Christmas Tree came fairly recently (far more recently than Nimrod), and putting gifts under it came even later. Sounds like a highly specific library you visit.Skittle 21:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan Rites and Antichrist Activities 

message: This section feels to me as if it should be a separate article; the subject matter isn't primarily Christmas, but even the parts that are come at it in a detailed & unfamiliar way that doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the article.  But I'm tired and it's late (my usual excuses) and I can't get my mind around it now.  Anyone else?  Elf | Talk 04:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same, and just made a major edit to remove POV (see below) and improve flow, but it still needs better composition.--Johnstone 16:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Christmas section in article 

message: Because it is based completely on one particular translation of Jeremiah, I have removed the following criticism of the Christmas trees from the article:
:"Jeremiah 10:1-5 speaks of this custom, "Hear the word which The Lord speaks to you, O house of Yisrael. Thus said The Lord, 'Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not be awed by the signs of the heavens, for the nations are awed by them. For the prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it does not topple. They are like a rounded post, and they do not speak. They have to be carried because they do not walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they do no evil, nor is it in them to do any good.'" The Bible describes the Christmas tree as an idol. It might not be by chance that at Christmas we place our gifts at the foot of the tree just as many other idols are offered gifts at their feet."
An alternate translation of the underlined portion, in the New Jerusalem Bible (which is translated directly from the original Hebrew) reads:
:"Yes, the customs of the peoples are quite futile: wood, nothing more, cut out of a forest, worked with a blade by a carver's hand, then embellished with silver and gold, then fastened with hammer and nails to keep from moving.  Like scarecrows in a melon patch, they cannot talk, they have to be carried, since they cannot walk.  Have no fear of them: they can do no harm—nor any good either!"
Since they are not carved out of wood, and do not resemble a scarecrow, this is hardly a rail against Christmas trees.--Johnstone 16:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical quote used to criticise the Christmas tree 

message: I found some information on the over-commercialization of Christmas and I've sent the articles to some of my relatives. To the view of Rev. Lau of my church, Christmas should be the day for celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. For over 130 years, people have been shopping a lot during the Christmas cycle, esp. those in U.S. and Canada. This year, economists estimate that the sales amount of Christmas cycle will amount to 23% of annual total. I and the Rev. disagree because this seems to completely ruin he real purpose of this festival. If you have other comments, you can add or you can reply me at cheung1303@netvigator.com --Cheung1303 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialization 

message: You now can read well into this article without getting swamped by the much-criticized Anglo-American slant. Evidently, nominating it for FAC was helpful. Anyone want to take it the next step ... chopping up UK and US "Media Christmas" for example, or incorporating the international stuff better into the main text? ... and perhaps re-nom it in time?Sfahey 00:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many imprvnts this week. In the same vein as above, anyone want to move/shorten/shuffle those Ang-Amer centric sections ... and maybe shorten or footnote the (interesting but parochial) Oliver Cromwell section as well ... and re-nom. this timely article?Sfahey 00:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting better 

message: Come on...which is it Really?  I believe we need to include HOLY ; (I did a Find search) not once is the word Holy said.  We may have enter a said period in our time when Christmas is no longer considered a Holy day, but rather a Holiday - along with Groundhog Day, Boxing Day and not to mention the endless lines at your local Wal-Mart.  </br> PEACE RoboAction 08:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Christmas is a secular HOLIDAY in as much as it is recognized as such by many governments around the world. Perhaps some people see it as holy, but calling something a holiday doesn't imply that it cannot have a religious aspect. In fact, it may imply just the opposite. The compound term holy day in contrast emphasizes the holiday's religious aspects and thus creates bias. Theshibboleth 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Holiday and Holy Day are etymologically synonymous. The "War on Christmas" is a witch hunt. Go read the gospel again and pay attention to the parts where pharisees and do-gooders pestered Jesus about such trivialities and he reminded them over and over again the they can stop worrying about petty conflicts and get back to their duty to love one another. --Dystopos 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiday vs. Holy day 

message: I hope it's seen as helpful rather than scroogey that I've removed the article from :Category:Holidays of the United States, sincde that's defined as "a collection of articles about holidays celebrated only, or primarily, in the United States". Incidentally, please do not add the article to the wider :Category:Holidays either, as it is already a member of that (through the subcategory :Category:Christmas.--Bishonen (talk) 21:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Holidays of the United States 

message: I did not find any reason for the reference to Swedish newspapers testing foods in the paragraph which I shortened.  Without such an explanation the item seemed lengthy (and bizarre). Sfahey 21:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I totally don't understand why you've now put the food poisoning scare sentence back, after I removed it. (The seasonal scare is an established media tradition, and personally I think the article can do with a little bizarre, but that's me.)--Bishonen (talk) 21:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (at the risk of beating a dead reindeer) I don't like to delete material which someone made the effort to contribute. In this case I saw flowery phraseology and slang ("slap-up") about a (food poisoning) scare which had not itself been mentioned. I thought it warranted toning down and explication, but not necessarily deletion. Curiously, the sentence which was left behind after someone else deleted the whole (Swedish food) thing suggested that a Disney movie is the most-entrenched tradition of Swedish Christmas. Can THIS be true?  I gave it the benefit of some doubt and just inserted the qualifier, "perhaps".Sfahey 22:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought my edit summaries were very clear, those someones were all me. I contributed the paragraph about the julbord tradition and the media julbord scare tradition, you shortened it (don't understand the bit about you adding an explanation or explication), I removed the whole food material because I thought it a hollow shell without the attractively traditional aspect of the media scare, you reinserted it. Please just put any and all parts of the paragraph that you don't approve out of their misery, have you never heard of cruelty to animals? There are no someones out there to offend, nobody else added or removed any Swedish stuff. Incidentally, the reference to Ingmar Bergman, that you have also cleaned off (too flowery?), that was me, too. As for the Disney special on Christmas Eve being the one overarching Swedish Christmas tradition, yes, it's true. There's a lot of regional variation in Sweden, because the land is big although the population is small, so quarrels are liable to break out about any and all non-Disney aspects of Christmas, depending on where people have their roots. ("Baked ham? The hell you say! The traditional boiled pike!"--"Lutfisk!"--"All that matters is that you make your own mustard from whole mustard seed!"--"Herring salad!" Etc.). I quite understand if you won't take my word for the sense of national unity Swedes get from watching Disney on Christmas Eve, but ask any Swede--User:Fredrik or User:Mic come to mind. Merry Christmas.--Bishonen (talk) 00:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food poisoning scare? 

message: I think that during IWW and possibly IIWW on many fronts the fighting stopped and soldiers from different sides mingled. Can anybody verify this, and possibly and more similiar trivia from other historical periods? This would definetly be a good example of 'good will towards man'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmmm. that may relate to the carol, "Silent Night". The article is long already, but I will look into this eventually.Sfahey 02:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The carol in mind was "Christmas in the Trenches". Its story is worth looking up.Sfahey 15:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: From other point of view: during WWI there where some battles in Latvia that are now refered as Christmas battles, if I remember corectly my school book stated that one of sides choosed to attack shortly before christmas because other side wouldn`t expect it -- Xil - talk 20:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And every year after that, the officers fiercely cracked down to keep the men fighting. And the last eye witness to the truce died recently. Sad. Good will to all men, until the officers catch on. Skittle 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  XMAS during wars 

message: On Dec 20, an anon contributed a pretty amusing joke paragraph under "Regional customs" about the unique Sicilian species the "reindeer goat" trecking through the snow [sic] on Christmas Eve to receive the blessing of the Marchese of the village (himself a Wikipedian, I have no doubt) from the balcony of his palazzo. I regretfully removed the paragraph some hours later. But yesterday, Dec 23, 66.56.91.185 (another anon, not, I believe, identical with the Marchese) reinstated it ! C'mon, folks, a joke's a joke. It's over now. If you don't believe me, google for the reindeer goats, break out a map to check out the Sicilian climate, and, finally, check the Marchese's Christmas blessing in a Latin dictionary. I'm removing it again.--Bishonen | (Talk) 21:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicily joke: the reindeer goats are officially extinct, let it go, please 

message: Could this article benefit from a paragraph on political correctness?  It seems like in recent years the public celebration of Christmas (even in secular ways) has caused controversy due to the holiday's religious nature. Meanwhile, some Christians have become upset that public celebration and recognition of one of their favorite holidays is becoming almost taboo. 
Would this article benefit from a short paragraph about this? - Chardish
:Perhaps a separate article, "The Christmas Controversy?" Is it a religious holiday or a secular holiday with religious origins? Either way, is it appropriate for the holiday to completely dominate a society (I'm speaking from a US perspective here) simply because the majority of its citizens are Christians? Is downplaying Christmas or acknowledging other holidays really an "attack" on Christmas as the Fox News Channel (and other conservatives) would have us believe? --207.69.138.10 05:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A "short paragraph on political correctness" wouldn't be a single paragraph for very long, I bet: it would be bound to provoke the usual acrimonious Religious Right versus Liberal battle and edit war along the usual US lines (speaking from a non-US perspective here), as seen in so many places on Wikipedia. I think it would take over the Christmas article, discourage anybody interested in contributing on other aspects, and leave the page yet another charred battleground. I agree with anon, a separate article is a good idea, with a link from this one.--Bishonen | (Talk) 08:33, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas and political correctness? 

message: Would anyone else be in favour of moving/copying some content onto sub-pages?  Christmas dinner for example, is blank at the moment, as are Christmas traditions, Christmas worldwide, The_Christmas_story, and presumably Santa_Claus has lots of people writing on his own page without needing to repeat their work here. Ojw 12:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good. The references to the subtopics should still be 1-2 sentences, to make coherent narrative. Stan 13:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: !!!Hey! That's not the way to do it, Ojw! You've deleted half the article without even a comment in the edit field! Please create appropriate subpages, and give detailed info about them on this page, before deleting material. And before that, please give the people who've worked on the article a chance to respond to your original proposal. Being bold is one thing, halving an article that was just voted a Featured article (were you aware of this?) is another. I'm confident you have good intentions, but I'm going to revert to the version before yours now (see how I say so on the Talk page before I actually do it?), and look forward to more discussion on this page, of your apparently quite drastic plans for Christmas.--Bishonen | (Talk) 14:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many apologies, and thanks to everyone who did it properly after my attempt.   There seemed to be lots of sections which were distinct enough in their style and content to warrant a wikipedia entry of their own, although you're quite correct that my edit was the wrong way to do it.  Regards, etc. Ojw 21:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: ====Thank You, Bish====. At least, before the newcomers chopped it up, they asked for opinions anyway.  They might go back a couple of months and see how far this article has come to date. In the aftermath of this ongoing Holiday frenzy cooler heads will hopefully prevail.Sfahey 18:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Removed somewhat diffuse exchange on contribution by Gabriel Kent, please see History. The upshot of it is described by Sfahey thus:
:I have difficulty following the above series of exchanges/events/misunderstandings, but it still remains that the segment in question is not properly part of an encyclopedia article on Christmas. At best it is POV. Perhaps, since one COULD describe it as sort of a compendium of various abstract POV's, it might have its own page, but I plan to move it from its current location.Sfahey 00:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical perspective 

message: I noticed with interest the general application of the word 'christian'.  It is important to note that there are fundamentaly different views regarding practices and doctrines amongst christianity and christians.  It is important to note in comments e.g. Christmas, whether this is a biblical scriptural event, practice or custom, or doctrinal with regards to one or more sections of christianity.
With the entry of Christmas, it is of note that no reference to christmas, or command/custom to celebrate the birth of Christ can be found in the bible. Refer to many encyclopedia references with regards to the origin of christmas.
Probably a good way is to structure a section specifically on the origin of Christmas, showing the multiple influences and the proclamation of Constantine, after which the celebration became popular.
:Hard to quarrel with most of this, except that the article clearly delineates the differences between "biblical" events, secular customs, and the pagan roots of the current celebrations. In any event, the recent additions to the LEAD PARAGRAPH are clearly "over the top" for this section, and will be (at least) moved.Sfahey 22:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas points 

message: Given the latest number of adds and deletes, I notice what is surfacing here is a difference with reference to the term 'Christian', and who may or may not encompass this group. 
The article states that Christmas is a holiday in the christian calendar.  As the term 'Christian' denotes being a follower of Christ, it is incorrect to state this as a 'Christian' holiday, as this is a denominational holiday, or rather, a holiday instituted not by biblical directive or command, but rather by tradition and other events, and celebrated by certain church or denominational groups.  At least clearly define Christmas as not having a biblical origin in the heading, and not being celebrated by all who profess to follow christ, then all else are ok.
Let me illustrate.  If people in my cultural region or country decide to implement a new holiday, non biblical, - lets say 'Christian fishing day' that is partly political, partly tradition etc, I would be incorrect to categorically say that this is a holiday in the 'Christian calendar', celebrated by 'Christians'. Of course I can say it has precedent in the bible as 'fishing' played an important part in the apostles lives. (For those that do not get the point, use another example e.g. a new day called 'Christ healing day'?) It would apply to our group and circumstances only, not to the greater whole.  The same with Christmas.  Just because some denominations, eg the Catholic and Protestant churches 'decided' to celebrate an added holiday, does not mean all followers of Christ do.  
I am sure there are many that find the origin and practice of christmas offensive.  Contributors have agreed to the pagan origins and non christian practices involved, and yes it has become a 'de facto' holiday celebrated by the masses, but is definitely not 'de jure', from the source of christian beliefs. 
Please note that it is not my intention to be controversial in this regard, and I do not disrespect a day that carries importance to others. However, from a 'knowledge correctness' point of view, in favour of precise knowledge, this should be adapted to reflect correctly.
:hmmmm. I've thought about this at length. "Christmas" I think "began" in the early years of Christianity, when there was but one Christian church. Things first splintered after Constantine, and I think most if not all "Christians" continued to celebrate Christmas, albeit settling on different dates. What are the exceptions to Christians recognizing Christmas? Unless I'm missing something big here, as long as the article goes (deeply) into the pagan roots and secular present-day aspects of the holiday, I don't see a problem with introducing it as a "Christian" holiday. Sfahey 16:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NB Christian definition 

message: I don't understand the intent of the recently added "merge" comments atop the "Secular customs" section of "Christmas".  This  is a featured article, and large changes should be made only after careful deliberation.  Clearly the two subsidiary articles are repetitious and should be disambiguated/merged however. Sfahey 22:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has just arbitrarily moved the entire "Christmas around the world" section. Again, this section ... largely as is ... was part of the article when it became a "featured article." I think whoever did this should either return the section ... and the other section he/she moved ... to the main Christmas page, or compose an abbreviated version of the section rather than just dumping it onto another page. Other opinions, please? Sfahey 19:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Merge"? 

message: Noel redirects to this article, yet there is no mention of Noel within the article itself...someone care to fix this? (either by removing the redirect so it can have its own article, or providing the appropriate info in this one) -- jiy 05:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Doesn't Noel just mean Christmas? DirkvdM 08:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nöel is French for Christmas, and may also refer more specifically to a Christmas song. I don't think it needs to be defined here any more than "Navidad" or "Weinachten", etc. I suggest the link be removed, unless some clever wikipedian can link it to the French article on "Nöel." Sfahey 16:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ehm, ... that link can be found in the sidebar on the left ... Or do you mean remove the redirect? Why bother? DirkvdM 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mainly reacting to the original suggestion, where whoever follows "Noel" to "Christmas" won't find out what the word means.Sfahey 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You figured it out, you clear it up :) . DirkvdM 09:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noel, as a name, is pronounced as one syllable. Noel, as Christmas, is pronounced as two, probably owing to the umlaut thing over the o. I assumed they were differeny words. I don't really know what the point of this is now. I'm rambling. Skittle 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Jiy, I just had the same experience as you and was just as annoyed. I had to read the French article to find out what the origins of Noël were. You are right -- the word is also an English word and is notable so I agree it should have it's own Wikipedia article or its own section within this article. It is analagous to Yule in that it is an English word used for Christmas which is used as the main word for Christmas in a different Indo-European language. So "noël" probably deserves the same attention as "yule". Donama 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not just alter the opening statement to "Christmas (literally, Mass of Christ), also known as Noel) . . ." CrazyInSane 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. And if it looks a bit clumsy, please fix it so it looks nice. I updated both the Noël and Noel articles too. Noel now redirects to Noël and Noël is a disambig page pointing to both the Christmas and Christmas carol articles. I also included the word origin there, since it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Donama 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noel 

message: Garzo deleted this external link: [link removed here also] nice present, great idea!
I put it here, I think it's a very smart link!
:You got an system spam message for adding the link. It might not be strictly commercial, but it is canvassing for support for a campaign. This is an encyclopaedia article about Christmas. This link is not encyclopaedic. --Gareth Hughes 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And note that I removed it from this talk page as just another way to try to get free publicity. Spam is as spam does. DreamGuy 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A smart Christmas 

message: If this is going to appear on the main page at some point- its be nice if the empty section Regional customs and celebrations had some content. Fair use rationales should be added for the fair use images in the article too.--nixie 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty section 

message: In some parts of Germany Christmas is traditionally celebrated on Christmas Eve (Dec 24) rather than Christmas Day (Dec 25). The (catholic) Christmas masses are held on Christmas Eve's afternoon (for children -- oftenly with a nativity play performed by children) and evening (for adults) with the presents being opened afterwards at home, with the family gathered around the christmas tree.
Additionally, unlike the American tradition with the presents being opened on Christmas Day, no stockings are put up, but the children polish their boots and put them in front of their doors on Saint Nicolaus's (Saint Claus, Santa Claus, whatever you want to call him -- looks pretty much like the good ol' red-and-white Santa Claus just with a Bishop's hat) day, which is several weeks before Christmas (Dec 5th I think).
The presents are traditionally delivered by the Christ Child (not to be confused with Baby Jesus -- it's essentially a young angel that also picks up the children's wishlists), although Father Christmas is equally well, or, thanks to Americanization, even better, established as the giftbringer and wishlist-reader (essentially he's the same guy as the American Santa Claus minus the reindeers, North Pole and elves, although Americanization seems to establish that stuff as well -- he's closer to the Eastern European original).
The day Christmas is celebrated (24th/25th) as well as the giftbringer (angel/Santa) has always been a regional thing in Germany as far as I know. I think the more catholic communities tended to have a preference for the Christ Child, but I'm not sure about any place other than Cologne/North-Rhine Westphalia and even here it varies between the families.
I think the tradition of the presents being delivered and opened on Dec 24th (rather than the morning of Dec 25th) as well as the Christ Child is common in more places than just some random parts of Germany, but I don't know enough about other regions with that tradition as that I could add anything to the article.
I was just wondering because the article doesn't seem to make any mention of the 24th serving as most important day of Christmas at all. I'm aware of this tradition (like many others) fading through Americanization (like it or not, but American media, and tv in particular, has a strong influence on such traditions in other countries) and the odd shift from generation to generation, but I do think it deserves a mention. -- Ashmodai 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 24th and Christmas in Germany 

message: The introduction of this article uses the term Modernist to describe the origins of christmas:
"Modernists contend that 25 December was only adopted in the 4th century as a Christian holiday by the Roman Emperor Constantine, to encourage a common religious festival for both the Christians and the Pagans."
Whereas the body of the article refers to Scholars when describing the origins of christmas:
"most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for the pagan Festival of Saturn celebrations of the winter solstice."
I think the introduction should use the word Scholar. According to the article, if "most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century", then Modernists must be "most scholars". So to make the article clearer I suggest replacing Modernist with Scholar. Any objections? Jamie 16:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me... Modernists almost sounds like a put down. DreamGuy 21:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term ''Modernist'' to describe the beliefs of the origin of Christmas 

message: Surely not.  I mean, it's twee.  Are we going to feature all the HallmarkTM holidays when they occur now?  And what happened to the straw poll that showed large-scale opposition to this?  Blech. brenneman(t)(c) 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not uncommon to main page articles of relevance to a particular date, and this would certainly be one. Last year I don't think it quite made "feature" status in time. Sfahey 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA on the 25th 

message: First, keep in mind that the bible has denounced divination or looking to the stars for advice, mentioned at Deuterononmy 18:10-12. 
Second, the star FIRST led the wise men to Herod (Matt 2:9) whose intent was to kill Jesus. Surely God wanted Jesus dead. Why would God do this since he hates divination?  Through a dream in verse 12, they were warned to not return to Herod and leave there way. The intention of Herod becomes clear when he decreed all children under the age of 2 to be killed. Also, per the custom, the wise men gave gifts to Jesus and his family, but notice they received nothing from them. The celebration of Saturnalia, however, gifts were exchanged. 
Third, angels told the of Jesus to the shepards, as opposed to a star later.
Fourth, there is no command given to celebrate Jesus' birth. That is why his birthdate is not in the bible,because it is not necessary. However, we can trace the start of his ministry via Daniel's prophecy in chapter 9. Furthermore, only 2 birthdays are mentioned in the bible, Pharoh's and Herod's. Pharoh at his party killed the chief baker (Genesis 40:20-22), while John the Baptizer was beheaded for Herod (Matt 14:6-10). Both examples are not in a good light.
Fifth, the day itself is Christ Mass, or Mass of Christ. But Mass is the Catholic way of celebrating the Last Supper. That is celebrated though for them in the March-April months. Mass has nothing to do with Christ's birth, yet that is what we call it.
Sixth, the last day of Jesus life was Nissan 14, the day Jews celebrated the passover (Luke 22:7). We do not have to guess at the date of his death. His ministry was also 3.5 years long, which would put the date of his birth more towards October than December.
Seventh, what do people think about this time of year? Buying gifts to exchange? Jesus in a manger? Santa Claus, where does he come from and fit in? Doesn't the fact that the Saturnaila and how people did the same practices now but for so called Christian reasons mean anything? I might as well add, what does the easter bunny have to do with Jesus dying?
:So, what do you think should be changed?  I can't quite follow your critique to understand what problems you think exist with the article.  For example, how does the Bible's condemnation of divination cause the article to be incorrect? Jpers36 14:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, i think your missing the point mate. Regardless of you believe in Christmas or not, the article portrays the current belief of Christmas. Wikipedia isn't a portal to debate whether a religious belief is right or wrong, rather it is a knowledge base. Jamie 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in article - Viewpoints 

message: Firstly, I'm not a "licensed" apologist.  I'll give my best response to this. 
1.  Following an abnormally bright star is not the same thing as looking into the stars for a message.
The verses in Deutronomy 18:10-12 speak against magicians in general:
* Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead." The Wikipedia states "Divination is the practice of ascertaining information from supernatural sources."  This could even refer to Angels!  Obviously he is referring to diviners who heap the title of diviners on themselves and practice divination contrary to God's Religion.  (tea leaves, looking into sheep guts for messages, etc.)  In a modern context, this is speaking against people who stir their alphabet soup and think they see a message telling them something, when it says "NQEBA GOR PUGLO"  If God spoke through alphabet soup, He would make it very obvious. It is not specifically looking to the stars.  Taking one word out context does not justify your reasoning.
According to a footnote in the New American Bible for Matthew 2:2
* We saw his star: it was a common ancient belief that a new star appeared at the time of a ruler's birth.  Matthew also draws upon the Old Testament story of Balaam, who had prophesied that "A star shall advance from Jacob" (Nm 24, 17), though there the star means not an astral phenomenon but the king himself.
2. Your interpretation of Matthew 2:9 is wrong.  When Herod saw the star, he called his magi together to figure out when the star appeared.  He then sent out his magi to "search diligently for the child.  When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage."  They then followed the star, which had not moved since its initial rising, and led to Jesus.  Read the chapter, not the sentence.  God did not intend Jesus to die at that time, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus didn't die at that time.  God never makes mistakes.
3.  The sheperds and the wise men are not the same.  The sheperds also visited Jesus and payed homage.
4.  Not being commanded to celebrate is not the same thing as being commanded not to celebrate.  When your Messiah is born, then celebration of his birthday is fitting thing to do, no?  That's why Christians celebrate His birth.  It doesn't have to be the exact day.  It's the same celebration, regardless of the date it is.
5.  Wow.  Do you have any idea what the Mass is?  Mass is the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Body of Christ.  It is celebrated every Church service.  It is celebrated for forgiveness of sins, as in ancient Jewish tradition.  This is the most Pure Sacrifice given by God.  By trans-substantiation, bread and wine become Body and Blood through the Holy Spirit.  Thanksgiving is done, and the Eucharistic hosts are recieved by the people.  There is only one sacrifice, though celebrated many times.  This is done by the fact that time is irrelevant to God and the Holy Spirit.  Research a little bit more before you utter one of the most horrible blasphemies against the Catholic Church possible.  The Eucharist is one of the most Sacred, most core beliefs to the Catholic Church.  The sacrifice is still offered on Christmas.
6.  Yes.  As I said... It doesn't have to be the exact day.  It's the same celebration, regardless of the date it is.  It is celebrated by tradition on December 25th, the end of the Advent season.  During the Advent season, Catholics prepare themselves for the coming of the Lord (the second coming, that is) while reflecting on the first coming's prophecies, stories, prophecies for the second coming, and the season is also a time of intense self examination and penance.  It's a time of fasting, like a mini-lent.  Christmas is after advent by tradition.  It's just the way it is.
7.  Christians don't reflect the ideas of commercialism in this season.  That's secular.  Instead, the idea of giving is for promotion of goodwill and stewardship.  Santa Claus evolved from ideas of Saint Nicholas, a preacher who gave to the poor by sneaking into their houses (versions of this story vary).  The idea of Santa Claus exploded from there.  Mainly it's a good way for kids to learn to be good for rewards that may not be immediately discernable.
Many pagan traditions were warped by preachers converting the pagans until they reflected Christian ideas and had no reference to pagan gods or beliefs anymore.  This helped the pagans understand Christianity better.  It's a common thing in history that you give examples in someone's own experience in explaining something.  It breaks down barriers and communicates the idea better.
The Easter bunny is not a core Christian belief.  In fact it's not a Christian belief.  It's just a way to allow Children to wake up bright-eyed and joyful.  Kids like having fun, you know.  Easter is a day of celebration.  Jesus died on Good Friday anyway, not Easter.  He rose from the dead on Easter, the third day of his death.  (Friday, Saturday, Sunday)
If anyone is Ordained and Catholic out there and wants to correct me, go ahead.
24.183.61.204 00:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to "Errors in Article" - Apologetic Response 

message: "Christians believe that Jesus's birth, or nativity, fulfills the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin and bridge the separation between God and mankind." seems problematic. The traditional Jewish view on the Messiah specifies that the Messiah will do particular things which Jesus did not do. Christians either adopt a different view of what the Messiah is suppossed to do, or say that Jesus will come back and do those things later. As it stands now, this sentence takes a POV position on who is right about what the requirements are.
The Christmas article seems like a poor place to explain the differences between Judaism and Christianity, but it also seems necessary to mention that Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, so I don't think this article should be deleted. For now I've removed "from Judaism", but I'm not sure that's a good fix.
Woty 18:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messiah POV issue 

message: I, for one, am glad that this article is not merged with "holiday spirit" as when I came to this site it was "Christmas" in particular for which I was looking.  I really didn't want an article on "Holiday Spirit" but an article on "Christmas" and that is what I found.  Thank you.
:You might be interested in War on Christmas.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the suggestion was to merge Holiday spirit (which despite its name is very much biased toward a Western, Christian outlook) into the Christmas article. Holiday spirit should actually probably be replaced with a redirect to Holiday, or if renamed to Christmas Spirit be replaced with a redirect here. Theshibboleth 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Deserves Its Own Article 

message: I'm going to try to bring this article back into its featured article quality state, but until then I recommend that it be locked to editing. Theshibboleth 06:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock article 

message: Its clear from the scripture that jesus wasnt born in winter...
When the shepperds saw the angels come down to announce jesus's birth they wouldnt have been in the fields in december, The Palestinian winters are to cold.
* According to the article chronology of Jesus, mediterratean climates allow shepherds of that area to be in the fields during December Pictureuploader 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jesus wasnt born in winter. 

message: If this section remains a list it will rapidly become unmanageable. Presumably, the (IMO ridiculous) "War on Christmas" cultural debate/propaganda campaign merits its own article and this subsection (or a subsection of this subsection) should summarize the major points rather than starting a new list of "evidence" of something or other. --Dystopos 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas and cultural diversity 

message: Whether or not this article is featured in time for Christmas, we should at least aim toward getting it to featured status at some point.  So, let's item-by-item fix the problems with this artilce. I'll start.
#What does "hight-tone" drama mean in the "Economics of Christmas" section?
#What does "rich production values" mean in the "Economics of Christmas section? Theshibboleth 08:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific problems with the article 

message: With December 25th in the Old Style Julian calendar now referring to January 4th in the Gregorian calendar, shouldn't Christmas now be celebrated on January 4th? Dates for other events, such as Isaac Newton's date of birth have been shifted to reflect this so I'm curious why Christmas wasn't also shifted.
::December 25, 4 BC on the Julian calendar corresponds to December 23 on the Gregorian calendar. I did the conversion here. For 2006, Julian Christmas would be January 7 on the Gregorian calendar. Where did you get January 4 from?
::Writers on Russian history use the expression "October Revolution" for the Communist takeover in 1917.  This is an unconverted Julian date. American dates are converted (notably Washington's birthday), but this is not otherwise customary.Kauffner 09:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas on January 4th 

message: A link was reinserted to fisheaters, previously removed as part of a sustained campaign of linkspamming spanning over 100 articles.  Please discuss why you think this link is justified in this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the link back in because there is no other external link like it and because it is a pretty complete overview of traditional Catholic customs and devotions that not only traditional Catholics, but mainstream Catholics and people interested in historical Catholic traditions would benefit from. Malachias111 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the "New Advent" Catholic site already exists; that's a pretty good website, well known, much used, and admired bu web users worldwide.  Why is another Catholic link needed?  Thanks...KHM03 18:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So does the article.  I am not convinced.  Fisheaters has a very distinct perspective. It's proper to link from sites discussing issues of Catholicism, but I can see no good reason to link it from a mainstream article on Christmas. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of the past link spamming - I would suggest this be not included until the link can be verified that it is notable for this article. I reviewed it quickly and seem similar to the article itself, but more detail. Trödel•talk 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  But I would heartily encourage Malachias to create new articles for anything for which (s)he considers Wikipedia provides inadequate coverage. Sans linkspam, of course.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Besides, much of what the Fisheaters site has on it...the O Antiphons, Advents wreaths,  etc....is not distinctly Catholic, but more general Christian, so it hardly seems necessary.  KHM03 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: I inserted the book The Mystical Interpretation of Christmas (1920, from 1910's writings of the author) since it contains a view of Christmas from the perspective of Occultism and Esoteric Christianity/Mystic Christianity, which examines aspects of Christmas generally unnoticed by traditional/mainstream denominations in Christianity or by historical research. --GalaazV 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: I removed this section - it is unsourced and is suspected of NPOV - I don't think it contributes in its current state to the article being featured. 
Social impact of Christmas
Because of the focus on celebration, friends, and family, people who are without these or who have recently suffered losses are more likely to suffer from depression during Christmas. This increases the demands for counseling services during the period.
It is widely believed that the number of suicides spikes during the holiday season, although the peak months for suicide are actually May and June. Because of holiday celebrations involving alcohol, drunk driving-related fatalities typically also increase.
Non-Christians in predominantly Christian countries may be left bereft of entertainment around Christmas when stores close and friends depart on vacations.. The stereotype of recreation for non-Christians during Christmas is "movies and Chinese food", as movie theaters remain open to bring in holiday dollars.
In North America the naming of various holiday terms has become controversial. There is use of non-religious names like holiday tree and winter break in place of Christmas tree and Christmas break. Reactions to these attempts to include non-Christians are mixed, with many responding that renaming the events does nothing to hide their meaning and is condescending.
I suggest that after editing this could return to the article. Trödel•talk 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed social impact section 

message: I removed the link to Kwanzaa as it is not a religious celebration, but a cultural one.  Ramsquire 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other religious holidays occuring near Christmas... 

message: The amount of linkage in this article is just plain ugly.  It's obvious no editor has gone over it in awhile as sentences have been added over the weeks and more and more stuff was linked.  I'm using Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context as my guideline here.  In general,
*Link full dates only.  Solitary years or days/months should not be linked.
*Link only the first occurrence of a term.  I don't even want to tell you how many times Christians was linked in the article.
I cleaned up a section but there's quite a bit more work that needs to be done, so get cracking!  --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But December 25 needs to be at least once - it is entirely relevant for an article about a fixed festival to link to the day involved.  Same goes with other significant dates.  Morwen - Talk 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I can live with it being linked once.  But twenty times is just ridiculous.  Also, this article suffers from the same phrase being linked to many, many too many times.  You don't even want to know how many times Jesus Christ and Christians are linked.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That seems like a good idea. Perhaps one of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a good place to start a discussion about it.   JeremyA 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guide also points out, correctly, that there is a tension between the desire to link this way, and the need to not overlink.  Our first and foremost responsibility is to make a readable encyclopedia.  Most of our readers don't have preferences, and in fact don't even log in.  Creating an article that is unreadably littered with hundreds of blue links just to satisfy some sort of theoretical concern with honoring date format preferences for a tiny minority of readers is the equivelent cutting down an entire forest to save a single tree.  Nandesuka 01:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipping extraneous links 

message: There are many criticisms of Christmas apart from commercialization and waste.  For some Christmas can be an annoyance because preparations and celebrations so dominate life not long after Thanksgiving.  Christmas decorations may be left up until late in the summer and may be prominently displayed by towns.  Christmas songs can get old after a few times, but can be impossible to escape.  People who do not celebrate can cause tension.  Laborers are likely to work on Christmas for the extra pay while the Holiday is effectively reserved for those who can afford to take that time off.  The sheer scale and pervasiveness of Christmas as celebrated in some places has created a kind of backlash.  Something about this conflict apart from the economics should be mentioned. -- M0llusk 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can be annoying 

message: Christmas was on December 25 in the Julian Calendar. then we switched calendars, but we still celebrate it on December 25th, even though the old date is now moved to January 7th. Why?
:By "we" do you mean Roman Catholics & most Protestants?  The Eastern Church and Coptic Christians celebrate it on the 7th.  The Armenians celebrate it on the 6th (or the 18th). Rklawton 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 25th 

message: IMO, this page is quite confusing due to completely different "Christmas" views in the same part of the page. I suggest that the secular customs, commercialization and economics of Christmas (not religious customs and the actual background of Christmas) be moved to Christmas (secular) or Christmas (holiday), while this main page be kept for the religious day and the religious season. CrazyC83 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page split 

message: I am removing the claim that the birthdate of Jesus was the basis of the Gregorian Calendar. The Gregorian Calendar does not have any tie to the birthdate of Jesus, and in fact the new year had already been moved from December 25 to January 1 years before the Gregorian Calendar was proposed. The Anno Domini system of year numbering does begin with what was (incorrectly) believed to be Jesus' birth year, but should not be confused with the Gregorian Calendar, which it predates by several centuries. — Walloon 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1583 and the AD system of numbering is a part of it, although the same numbering system was often used with the earlier Julian calender. Before the Gregorian calendar was introduced, the beginning of the new year was celebrated on different days in different places. March 25 and April 1 (hence April's Fools Day) were common dates. January 1 was the "consular new year" in ancient Rome, the day an elected official would assume his position.Kauffner 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian Calendar 

message: I removed the link to Palestine, as at the time of Jesus's birth, Bethlehem was a city in the Roman province of Judea.  Palestine is a later creation.  I did add however, that Bethlehem is currently located in the West Bank. Ramsquire 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Place of Jesus... 

message: How did Christmas get to be so commercialized? Everyone celebrates it not knowing the origin... can someone please help explain that to me?
:Winter holdays have been accompanied by giving gifts for all of recorded history, AFAIK.Ronabop 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialized?.... 

message: The list of links looks to me to be excessive.  And yes, I even include the one I added myself.  I think it should be pruned, possibly to zero - we have articles for most of the subjects covered, blogs are not sources so are not appropriate per WP:EL, and half of these look like vanispamcruft (or at least trivia) anyway.
* Worldwide Christmas Countdown
* From Uruguay Christmas in Uruguay
* Christmas in Japan How the Western Santa and Asian customs fused to produce this unique holiday
* The custom of celebrating with Christmas Lights Videos and pictures of some extreme forms of holiday lighting
* The History of Christmas Exhaustive recap of Christmas history
* Christmas Traditions of UK
* Christmas in Asia (various countries)
* Christmas Traditions in Australia
* Catholic Encyclopedia
* Touchstone -- Calculating Christmas
*St. Nicholas site
*Saint Nicholas history
* The Great Dickens Christmas Faire the oldest San Francisco traditional holiday event.
* noradsanta.org - NORAD tracks Santa Claus on his route.
Input appreciated, - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The box with the picture in it is horrific, terrible, obscene can someone PLEASE change it. It takes all the dignity away from this article, and is unwikipedic!!!!!! Chooserr 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box 

message: The article states "As Isaac Asimov comments in his Guide to the Bible, "[C]onverts could join Christianity without giving up their Saturnalian happiness. It was only necessary for them to joyfully greet the birth of the Son rather than the Sun." 
Then it said, which I cut:
"Note that in Latin, the words for "son" ('filius') and "sun" ('sol') do not in the least bit resemble each other, making such pseudo-linguistic comparisons patently absurd."
The reader reads the material about Asimov, then gets told that its absurd. Well, if its absurd, why was it there?  Personally, I don't think Asimov's word-play is absurd. He never claimed that the words sound alike in Latin. He's writing in English and made an English-only pun.
::I think the quote should be cut. First off, Asimov has confused Saturnalia with the Sol Invictus festival. Saturnalia was a popular Roman holiday while Sol Invictus an official cult Aurelian created to promote a feeling of empire-wide unity. 
::The Asimov quote also feeds into the idea that Christmas was a plot to Christianize Saturnalia, and I see no basis to believe such a thing. The two holidays have separate origins, celebrate different things, and there is a full eight-day difference between them.Kauffner 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov quote 

message: Eastern Rite churches are not the same as Eastern Orthodox churches. Most of the former consider the Pope of Rome to be their supreme pontiff, while the latter do not. — Walloon 16:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Rite v. Eastern Orthodox 

message: Since when is Christmas referred to as "Winter Holiday" in the United States?  I've heard "Holiday season," "Happy Holidays," etc., to refer to the time surrounding Christmas and New Year's Day, but I've never seen "Holiday" used to mean "Christmas" except in sarcastic opinion pieces.  The fact that the words "Winter Holiday" are a link to Political Correctness make this look like vandalism, point of view, or both.  If this is an actual usage, I'd like to see sources.  See the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources.  Elliotreed 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter Holiday? 

message: The text on the page (near the beginning) says:
"The Eastern Orthodox church celebrates Christmas on January 7 which is December 25 in the Julian Calendar. The Greek Orthodox church does not recognize the Gregorian Calendar which was implemented by a Catholic Pope. Around the world, Christmas Day is celebrated on December 25. Christmas Eve is the preceding day, December 24."
However, should one go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Calendar and scroll down, one gets:
"...the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963), and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do, 25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian (which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100)."
From what I know, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the second claim is correct: different Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on different days.
Someone please amend that on the front page of article "Christmas".
Thank you and happy holidays (if you're celebrating, if not all the best as well!)
:that was corrected recently but a user has been editing it to the previous incorrect version today. I'll see what I can do. Enigmaman (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last revision was poorly written and is of questionable accuracy, but I'll let Bobanni deal with it since he's so insistent. Enigmaman (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all Eastern Churches celebrate Christmas on January 7th 

message: In communist days the cultural status of Christmas was shifted to New Year's Day in Russia and other countries. The main cultural holiday in Russia was Christmas before 1917 and it is so in the West but now the main winter holiday in Russia is New Year's day. And Christmas here is mainly religious holiday and does not have the same cultural value as in the West. I think the article should say about it. My English is not so good to do it myself. Illarionov (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural status in post-soviet states 

message: I've deleted (again) the section about Christmas in the time of Constantine.  As has been remarked above, it's a mess.  It's also complete nonsense, factually, as a look at any source will show.  Christmas was not celebrated on that date in the time of Constantine.  As other parts of the article make clear, it originates some time after Constantine died!  Roger Pearse 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish section removed 

message: I've revamped the intro paragraphs, as well as cleaned up the forefront template, and I hope everyone likes it. If not, please let me know why. I can understand if you'd like to revert it, but first please consider that I haven't changed anything, just cleaned the former presentation and removed some unnecessary baggage that should have been in the body, not crowding the intro. Thank you all for your co-operation. Feel free to hack at it with any improvements, they're more than welcomed.—Steven Evens (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp of intro. paragraphs 

message: I have returned the reference to Christmas as also being a season (aka Christmas Season / Christmastide) as it is known to millions of Christians worldwide…the singular word alone references this season.  To define it as a singular ‘holiday’ only would be incorrect.  Also, I have removed the unnecessary “spiritual leader” as that misrepresents what he was to millions who share the Christian faith. The information that follows and the link to 'Jesus of Nazareth' aptly identify who the subject is without shading the tone with opinion.--Operaguy (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the additions. I've just tweaked them a little bit to read easier. I've linked Christmastide in the very beginning sentence, and simply have linked the term "season" in "liturgical season". If you like, we can switch these linkings around to have it be liturgical season and just leave Christmastide bolded with no link. I just find the paragraph flows easier with mentioning Christmastide in the intro. Thanks.—Steven Evens (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nothing you changed was horrendous, but this entire process is a reason I think Wikipedia is doomed to eventual failure.  When people enter scholarly information, it's almost always dismissed for rhetoric laden with inaccuracies with which to relate personal biases.  I'm done editing Wikipedia - it's too frustrating to work on something and have it dashed by people with agendas.  I'm an atheist, but I quit reading the article on the first sentence when it clearly defines Christmas as a singular 'holiday' listing two possible dates. Mentioning Christmastide as an aside is not sufficient.  To the majority of people celebrating Christmas (billions of Christians world-wide) it is a season / a liturgical season / 12 days / 4-6 weeks, but never 1 day. --Operaguy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redo of 1st Paragraph 

message: I've deleted the US Federal Holidays template at the bottom of the article. New Year's Day is the only other international holiday in the US, and that article doesn't contain the template, so why should this one? If the US template is allowed then why not put one for Ireland, Poland, Mexico, South Africa etc. Any objections giving reasons why only the US should have a template here or should we go ahead and create one for most of the countries in the world? Dennisc24 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Federal Holidays Template 

message: 'Billions' of children seems just a bit extravagant. With only a few billion people on the planet, not all of them Christian and not all of them children, it seems a bit excessive. 'Millions' perhaps? 220.233.18.57 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Enigmaman (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billions of children 

message: Personally I don't see the point in having a separate page for Crimbo. It's just a slang name and all that is on that page could be moved to this one. ۩ Dracion (Level 85 Rs Player) ۩ 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Crimbo into alternative names section 

message: I would like to add the following to the External links section:
* Complete text, Washington Irving's book "Old Christmas" 1886  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.96.217 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Etymology used to have its own section with an appropriate header, below the ToC. In the present version it appears in the middle of the introduction. I'm not sure how or when this happened, or if it was even intentional given the levels of vandalsim we see here. However, introductions are normally limited to general info and etymology is somehwhat technical. Other articles that include similar info normally seem to give it an independent section when it is as detailed as this is. For an example, see Stonehenge, another old word with complex origins. I would strongly prefer to arrange this article in a similar fashion and once again give the etymology of the term it's own section. As an added advantage, this would shorten and streamline the intro which is currently a bit cumbersome. Doc  Tropics 06:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: It should be mentioned also that X-mas = Christ-mas, it is actually not derived from a practice of keeping 'Christ' out of the holiday.  Greek anyone? 140.233.216.47 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That issue is brought up in the restored Etymology section. MightyAtom (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xmas 

message: Thought this link could be a valuable addition to the nature of Wiki's content.
It contains the proclaimations made by different presidents of USA, for the occasion of Christmas:
http://theholidayspot.com/christmas/proclamations.htm
Waiting for your opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.204.137 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presendential Proclaimations for Christmas 

message: Luke 2:8 There were also in that same country shepherds living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks.
Their flocks would have been kept indoors, it wasn't the right season to be shepherding, it's supposed to be a winter festival.
--JoshuaMD (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... we know. The date of celebration of Jesus' birth is not based in any historical data or reference. It is believed to have been based off the dates of ancient Roman holidays, as is mentioned in this article. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus born in winter time? 

message: I remember a college professor years back who raised a point that December 25 was chosen to coincide with the idea of Christ's birth beginning the new age. That is, the start of the new calendar system would begin. With the Jewish practice of circumcision on the 8th day after birth, this would coincide with January 1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.48.5.47 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern historians agree that the most likely reason for the Church choosing December 25 for Jesus' birthdate was to easily convert pagans into Christianity by placing the Feast of the Nativity on or near their winter solstice festivals. The same thing is believed to have happened with Halloween, where All Saints Day was moved by the Church from May 1 to November 1, and was also known as All Hallows Day. The day before, October 31, All Hallows Eve, or Hallowe'en, is now the well-known October 31 holiday. The Christmas theory is somewhat disputed, however, with some Biblical historians insisting that the Bible confirms that Jesus was conceived in March, thus born in December (9 months later), making the December 25 date plausible as being accurate. I have never ince heard your professor's theory, though. We'd need some reliable sources before considering adding this to the article. Oh, and by the way—8 days after December 25 is actually January 2. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Christmas was not a major holiday for the early church, so the idea that it was scheduled to make it easier to convert pagans makes no sense. Because Christ was considered the "sun of righteous", he was associated with solar days. Based on this logic, Sextus Julius Africanus wrote that Jesus was incarnated on the vernal equinoix (March 25) and born nine months later on the winter solstice (Dec. 25). On the Egyptian calendar, solstice was January 6, which explains the date of Epiphany. Epiphany was a much more important holiday than Christmas in ancient times. The focus shifted to Christmas only after the Norse holiday Yule was Christianized and rescheduled to Dec. 25. Kauffner (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 25 chosen as based on Jewish tradition 

message: With the article locked, I can't fix the link in the Christmas decorations section that has stockings linked to stockings not Christmas stockings. Can someone aid here? Heiyuu (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  Thank you for pointing it out, Heiyuu.  Maedin\talk 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stocking link 

message: Anyone disagree/care to comment about changing the opening from "an annual holiday celebrated on December 25" to "an annual Christian and cultural holiday celebrated on December 25"? I'm thinking it might be better to disambiguate that in the beginning? Thanks all for input. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean, "Christian and secular"? Also, you can take out the word "annual." If the holiday is celebrate on December 25, it is obviously annual. Kauffner (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think we can call it both "Christian" and "secular", these words contradict each other. If it's secular, it's free of religious connotations. Using "cultural" I think embraces the fact that it's celebrated by non-Christians for cultural reasons, not explicitly Christian ones. Put it this way: non-Jews don't celebrate Hanukkah just to get presents, because Hanukkah is not a cross-cultural holiday. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Secular Christmas" is a standard phrase, way more common than "cultural Christmas." "Free of religious connotations" is exactly the point, because otherwise the teacher's unions and the ACLU will object to the celebration. The U.S. postal service puts out separate religious and secular Christmas stamps every year. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out these errors.  The page is semi-protected due to the high amount of vandalism this article regularly gets.  I changed the first grammar error to "this argument", but was unsure about the second one.  A live Nativity scene is not necessarily a tableau vivant, so I kept the "and" but removed the superfluous comma.  Hope it's suitable! Maedin\talk 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small alteration? 

message: Should there be something on consumerism that is now the new christmas? I guess I'm talking about constant adds, banners, promotions to buy things for Christmas, or in the name of Christmas - Charlie 2602  —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumerism 

message: Gosh. Scary external link notice. Would the external link gnomes please consider the relevance for the reader interested in the origin and associations of Christmas:
*Christmas: Its Origin and Associations, by William Francis Dawson, 1902, from Project Gutenberg
and if declined, be kind enough to state the reason. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested external link 

message: Regarding the mosaic depicting Jesus as a sun god, that isn't a proper translation. The mosaic depicts Jesus as the SON OF god, the 'light' coming from his head which resembles rays coming from the sun is metaphoric, and means the light of god. Do some research on this please...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.115.111 (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Christo sole, the caption, does indicate "Christ the sun". If you have any presentable evidence on the matter, that would be useful. --Doktorspin (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re mosaic depicting Jesus as a "sun god" 

message: I'm only going to comment on whether material that is not directly mentioned in an historical text (be it Chronographai or a dead sea scroll or text deciphered from a Mohenjodaro seal) is inadmissible in the article. The straightforward answer to that is no, such material is not inadmissible. There are several reasons for why this is acceptable in scholarly work, the main one being that reasonably accurate conjectures about what is missing can be made from other contemporary or later works and scholars are quite good at doing this. However, a better way to look at ancient texts as a source is to see whether text from a surviving fragment can be used as a source and the long answer to that is no. Only material that is published in peer reviewed scholarly journals should be used to support statements about historical events. Anything else, including direct quotes from that ancient text (which, naturally and inconveniently, was not written in 21st century English!) should first be written up in an article for submission to a peer review journal and then, once accepted, be reported here on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for research. Now, I am in no position to comment about the details of the various sources described above but my suggestion is that any direct reference to any ancient text be dropped as an argument for including, excluding, or reorganizing the contents of this article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Why is there not an article or section referring to the common custom of giving and receiving presents on Christmas? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not write a paragraph on presents? Someone will check it out and probably rewrite it, then someone else, but you will have started the subject rolling! --Doktorspin (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas presents 

message: The use of March 25 as when early christians celebrated the crucifixion is seeming more and more an apologetic device. It's clearly unknown to Eusebius E.H. 5.23ff and to Anatolius who is responsible for establishing the cyclical calculations still in use today. Before those times the general approach to celebrating the crucifixion was reflective of the Jewish lunar calendar. It was Anatolius who augmented it so that the celebration always fell after the vernal equinox. What should be clear is that the position on March 25 contradicts the Wiki information on the dating of Easter. Tertullian's date of the crucifixion, despite being on March 25, was in error for his day didn't work out to be as he claimed. Besides it doesn't represent a manifestation of celebration: it was a scholarly calculation. --Doktorspin (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculating a date to celebrate Easter and giving a Julian calendar date for crucification are two different things. The fact that March 25 can't possibly be the real date of crucifixion is not relevant. Africanus could still have gotten the March 25 from Tertullian. March 25 was Christian New Year's Day for hundreds of years. The "Early Christian" stuff is the from Catholic Encyclopedia.  If readers want to know how Easter was calculated, they can look at the Easter article. Kauffner (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly Tertullian wrote in Latin and Africanus in Greek. There was little direct interchange between the languages, especially when one considers that Tertullian was seen as a Montanist heretic. You should be cautioned as to the lack of credibility for March 25 as the date of celebration of the crucifixion by the unwillingness to celebrate it. The Julian date was guesswork by Tertullian and there is no sign that it was considered. Which ancient writers ever cite Tertullian? My copy of Eusebius E.H. says Eusebius knew very little about Tertullian. This modern stuff about March 25 is fairly plainly apologetic. --Doktorspin (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Roll, pp.79-81 basically eliminates Hippolytus, so we are left with Tertullian's one-off reference with its accompanying error. --Doktorspin (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "All Christian antiquity (against all astronomical possibility) recognized the 25th of March as the actual day of Our Lord's death," according to Catholic Encyclopedia. It cites "De Pascha Computus." Roll also gives Epiphanius as a source. (p. 74) The secondary sources should be more than adequate. You're reexamining the primary sources in a way that I find inappropriate. Kauffner (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Epiphanius is irrelevant being too late. "De Pascha Computus" is a fat lot of help, giving Jesus birth as March 28. You've still got just Tertullian and then apologetics. If you want to rehearse apologetics, then it doesn't matter what the sources say. If you're interested in what we can know, then all sources are important to consider. --Doktorspin (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetic crucifixion dating 

message: In Sweden and (all?) other nordic countries Christmas is celebrated the 24th, is there a reason it haven't been mentioned.78.70.130.199 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of that. If you can get a source we can put that into the article. NJMauthor (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas is by definition on December 25. But, yes, Scandinavia celebrates on Christmas Eve. Germany is the same. Years ago, Christmas Day was considered too religious for Santa Claus and the secular aspects of the holiday. Now religious observance has declined and it is just Christmas Eve that gets celebrated. Kauffner (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: http://www.luth.se/luth/present/sweden/history/folklore/christmas.html http://www.iceland.org/us/the-embassy/curiosities/nr/757 http://www2.norway.or.jp/culture/jul/xmasinnorway.htm This text mentions Denmark but also Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Austria and Hungary: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_every_country_celebrate_Christmas 78.70.130.199 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas the 24th 

message: Hehehe! I'll put one of these into the Miscellaneous section of the village pump, because I'm guessing this is technically the wrong place for this.Yellow Mage (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merry article name, everybody! 

message: I notice there is no longer an explanation of why the Orthodox celebrate on January 7, (i.e. because they still follow the Julian Calendar.) As for the Armenians, they are not really celebrating Christmas on January 6. The name for the holiday in Armenian corresponds to Epiphany, a holiday recognized by other churches as well. Kauffner (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox, Armenians 

message: This article has an excess amount of images that should be reduced. Zithan (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the Wikipedia rule on images? At what point do they become "in excess"? NJMauthor (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed one image. (Origin-- it's not an interesting image visually.) I also reduced the size of other images to "thumb." This means the size is set by the user's browser. I also staggered the photos, so I think this problem has been addressed. The only relevant wiki standard I know of is to avoid "stackup" -- one image directly above another. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Images are supposed to lend a critical understanding of the text. Excess images would be if the images affect the layout, pushing the sectional headings to the right, stacking and so on. Zithan (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess images 

message: My family has celebrated Christmas December 25th, since well, not sure. However even though we're Eastern Orthodox it says Christmas is January 7th. Is it because we use the Gregorian calendar and then the Orthodox Calendar's January which is the Gregorian December 25th? But then why is Easter celebrated on a different day?
Kostantino888Z (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Confused 

message: The article starts with the incorrect claim that "Christmas, also referred to as Christmas Day or Christmastide, is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25 that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth." There are many countries which are celebrating christmas on another day than 25 December. 
The problem here is that the article is called "Christmas". It should rather be called "Christmas Day" or "Christmastide", because Christmas in a single word is the day when the celebrating actually takes place, which is far from always on 25 December. There is already an article about Christmas Eve. This should be an article about Christmas Day, and an article about Christmas should be about the celebrating of Christmas in general, no matter what date it is. No offence, but the whole article seems to be made by Americans, which takes it for granted that Christmas and Christmas Day is the same. Christmas Day is 25 December, Christmas is the day when the Christmas is celebrated. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just America. The English-speaking countries all celebrate on December 25 -- and this is English Wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but Christmas is celebrated by most or the whole western world, so just because we are talking about the English Wikipedia, it doesn't mean Christmas celebration and Christmas Day should mean the same. At least not without clarify it more in the first part of the article first. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are separate articles for Christmas Eve, Christmastide and Christmas season. This article is about Christmas Day, known synonymously as simply "Christmas". We could theoretically rename this article to "Christmas Day", but the more popular term is "Christmas" when referring to the Dec. 25 holiday. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 06:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but not everybody who visits this article knows it. The term "Christmas" is the most popular term not only for those who celebrates Crhistmas Day, but also for those who celebrates Christmas Eve (and other days, for all I know). This is not just the English Wikipedia, it is also the main Wikipedia, used by persons all over the world, English speaking or not. Which is something that should be taken into consideration when writing articles. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:article name should help this discussion. I think that the article is properly named based on this wikipolicy. English Wikipedia should use the name that most Readers would identify with which is not necessarily the most correct name for the article subject.  NancyHeise  talk 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, no matter what the article is called, there should be added some info in the beginning of the article to clarify stuff (not halfway through). And I feel it is not the Wikipedia way to ignore other users and readers who doesn't have English as a mother language in cases like this. Because this is more than just language, it also reflects cultural differences. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Alternatively, we could leave the date out of the first paragraph.  The infobox already lists dates observed.  There's no need for just one of them to appear in the first paragraph.  Including them all in the first paragraph would make it too wordy.  Rklawton (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article need to be changed 

message: The article should maybe discuss on how christmas is received in other cultures and religions. I have noticed that the majority of jews and moslems do NOT celebrate christmas in any formal way, and in fact they usually refuse to purchase christmas trees. (cf , , , ) This could contribute to the perception that Christmas is not very multi-religious and therefore is maybe much less adaptable to secularism and related consumerism.  69.157.229.14 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Bede, "Yule" was the name of a month on the Anglo-Saxon calendar. So Yule as a feast must have developed after Bede's time. Perhaps Nordic pagans created the holiday to join in the fun of Christmas. According to Snorri, pagan Yule was on "the night of mid-winter," possibly the full or new moon in January, and the holiday was moved to December 25 when Scandinavia was Christianized. Kauffner (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews, muslims and others 

message: At the top of the article it now reads, "M*E*R*R*Y C*H*R*I*S*T*M*A*S* to one and all !!!" and while that's a nice gesture and all, I don't think it belongs here. Can someone please do something about that? 76.17.53.205 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Majorly talk 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: I propose a few changes to the opening sentence of the article: "Christmas (IPA: /krɪsməs/), occasionally referred to as Christmas Day or Christmastide, is an annual Christian holiday celebrated on 25 December or 7 January[2] that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.[3][4]"
Christmastide should be removed; Christmastide refers to the whole season, not the particular day. It seems this article's subject is the day of Christmas itself. Alternatively, if this article refers to the season surrounding Christmas, we should make that more clear in the opening sentence. The others are minor. Currently, "Christian holiday" is linked to "liturgical year". This doesn't seem quite appropriate. I would remove the liturgical year link, and just like Christianity from "Christian". I would changed the "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus", as this is what the wikilink actually is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Christmastime issue has been cleared up, and I've removed the "Christian" from "Christian holiday" in the intro as was previously decided upon here at the talk page. Since the holiday is both Christian and cultural, we decided to simply use "holiday". Lastly, I think "Jesus of Nazareth" is more appropriate so as to disambiguate as clearly as possible. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: There is a lot of overlinking in this article.  Could someone remove it with a program?  See:  WP:OVERLINK ~  Thanks.  ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: I wanted to add words (probably in parentheses)  to the effect that, "in Russia, uniquely, christmas is celebrated on 7 January." The date 25 December is meaningless in old and modern Russia. I am a westerner married to a Russian woman and I am currently in Moscow. Because of the constraints on editing the main page, I will just leave this note and let an authorized person make the addition. Anyone wants to reach me, <loloveweb@hotmail.com> And a merry christmas to those reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postlewaight (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Epiphany is January 6, not January 7. The reason that Russia observes Christmas on January 7 is that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar used by the Western Church. This is mentioned in the Infobox and should be mentioned somewhere in the article as well. BradV 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Christmas is Dec. 25 by definition. The Russians celebrate on Dec. 25, but they calculate the date according to a different calendar. Jan. 6 is sometimes called "Armenian Christmas." But if you translate the Armenian name for the holiday, what they are celebrating is Epiphany. Kauffner (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to opening sentence of "Christmas". I am requested to come to this page and discuss. 

message: Why does "Christmas Day" now redirect here? Christmas Day is a concept that certainly requires its own article, separate from the general festival of Christmas. If Christmas Eve has its own article, Christmas Day certainly demands this. There is much material specific to Christmas Day that cannot be properly dealt with in a general article about the religious and commercial season. Xandar 01:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In most contexts "Christmas Day" is synonymous with "Christmas". The separate but related "Christmastide" has its own article, but a "Christmas Day" article separate from "Christmas" wouldn't stand on its own. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Day article 

message: This is my first talk
I love christmas 
put the music on when you set up the tree is what i do  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascar09 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: There must have been a tradition of Dec. 25th as the rebirth of the unconquered son prior to Aurelian's decree because Cyprian -- quoted here on the topic -- died 19 years prior to said decree.  Pauldebits (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerned about synchronicity 

message: For example lawsuits against municipal bodies for displaying christmas lights. Or, the small scale religious boycott a few years back in America, it was against stores that had "happy holidays" or "Merry Xmas" in their advertisments instead of Merry Christmas. I think I recall Walmart being backed in a Corner about it. Also, Seinfeld had a whole episode about, this unease which some people had about Christmas. A.k.a. the episode about Festivis(sp?) Etc. CaribDigita (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of this article should please you: Christmas controversy. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a controversy section? 

message: A Google search returns Christmas; or, The Good Fairy as the location of the character lamenting the gift buying required of her, not The First Christmas in New England.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.50 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong reference 

message: I think the image could be better. :File:Julkrubba.jpg should be sufficient replacement until a better collage is made. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage image replacement 

message: The date in the main infobox is 25th Dec. This is not the case everywhere, notably Russia. Should the info box not also include 7th January (perhaps in brackets as it is much less common).
Several hundred million people celebrate Christmas in January and the article currently leaves one with the impression that there is only one Christmas Day. I am sure there is a wikipedia guideline somewhere about not making articles too Western-centric.
Just my thoughts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik1777 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Shouldn't the articles on Christmas and Christmas Day be separate? Christmas is a season, of varying length in different countries, not just a day. And Christmas Eve has its own article, as well as Boxing Day and Twelfth Night. Why is "Christmas Day" demoted? Having two articles would also give room for more discussion on things like secular influences and differing celebrations of the day in different countries. Helsingann (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been brought up. The solution was to embolden and wikilink "Christmastide", the extended Christmas season, in the first paragraph. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles? 

message: There are many encyclopediac references which indicate that many of the customs associated with Christmas have pagan connections to the celebration of the Winter Solstice. The date December 25 is thought to have been associated with the victory of the unconquered sun, which is around the time of the winter solstice when daylight hours start to lengthen. This might also be a part of an article on Christmas, without being dogmatic about any connections from various sources. http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/     http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm 
Also, some religious groups, many evangelicals, some Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, don't celebrate Christmas, so this might also be mentioned.209.212.20.5 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan Connections to Christmas