Talk:Christmas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Work to reach FA again

I think it'd be great if we could get this article to FA status again, and have it featured on the main page on December 25, 2006. Come on you've got to love that. Definitely doable. -- Alfakim --  talk  12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a history section, but it's very text-heavy now. I didn't find anything appropriate on the copyright-free sites. I was thinking of googling up old artwork, but I am not sure what the policy is on that.Kauffner 13:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the principles who shepherded this to FA last year, although they didn't front page it on 12/25. Tho' I've rv'd countless bogus edits since then, I wasn't aware until now that it had been yanked from the FA list. Good luck. Yuck-a-pucks will come out of the woodwork to mess with your best efforts. Sfahey 19:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I'd like to comment on the recent reverts made by User:Clinkophonist, allegedly because I am "Catholic," (which I am not). If you look at the old comments in the archive on this material, it is uniformly negative, which is what inspired me to rewrite it. It is not scholarly or referenced. It connects Christmas to almost everything except Christianity. Finally, the revert cuts the nativity section in half. Somehow, I imagined that the nativity was more relevant to Christmas than Saturn or Celtic gods.Kauffner 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

his or His?

Shouldn't the references to the Christ start with upper case letters, i.e. His or He instead of his or he.

No, that is strictly a Christian point of view. Though his name, "Jesus" and the title "Christ" are capitalized (as are "God", "Allah", "Buddha", "the Catholic Church", and other religious elements), the possessive "his" and "he" are not to be capitalized to ensure a NPOV concerning Jesus' divinity. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"wildly unhistorical"?

No offense people, what what on earth could make anyone think this is npov?

The word connects them to the magi of Babylon who select Daniel their chief in the wildly unhistorical Book of Daniel.

I'm pulling those two words for obvious reasons. There is no consensus on the issue of the historicity of Daniel, but 1). that's over the top, and 2:)those kinds of statements should be in Daniel itself, not as epithets to links. Thanatosimii 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any serious question as to the fact that Daniel is unhistorical. Who was king when and in what order is all messed up –- and the kings are central figures in the story. Without some attempt to evaluate the Bible as a source, the passage reads like a sermon. How about "historically doubtful"? If you take Matthew and Daniel at face value, the logical conclusion is that magi were a kind of professional association in Babylon that had a continuous history going back to Daniel -- a bit unlikely to say the least.Kauffner 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, wildly unhistorical is completely POV, regardless of how unhistorical Daniel might or might not be. Its an opinion, and it needs to be attributed; original research is not permitted. Clinkophonist 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

and the origin of Christmas .. WHERE?!

How come there is no separate section on the pagan historical origin of Christmas?! At least the very serious controversy!

see [1] [2] [3] -- and many other! __Maysara 09:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of paragraphs about the theory that Christmas evolved from Mithras celebrations and the Sol Invictus festival. There also stuff about how Yule and Saturnalia influenced Christmas. There's a hundred theories and they can't all be covered. Christmas is by definition a Christian holiday. Of course it has been influenced by pagan traditions. But I don't the Christian vs pagan framework is a useful way to look at the issue.Kauffner 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hoo (!) said anything about "Christian vs pagan framework" frameworking framework?! And HOOOO said anything about covering all hundred theories?! What I suggested was a separate section about the very FACT that the Christmas is precisely NOT by definition a christian holiday, since it certainly has a non-christian practice, religious or else, as its very origin. Now THIS, must be a very useful way, to look at the issue(.) I have already given some linkez ... [...influenced} {!]Maysara 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The salient facts about Mithras, Saturnalia, Yule, Sol Invictus, and the rest are already in the article. Readers are free to come to their own conclusions -- even to conclude that Christmas isn't Christian. Once you finish here can you check the the article on the papacy. I think it might be missing a section: "The Pope: Is he Catholic?"Kauffner 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is quite extremely superstitious, to conclude that, Holidays, like Popes, do posses a volition! Give me a break! (in other words; popes can choose their identity. Holidays, NOT!) __Maysara 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nativity

The comment in the nativity section that Luke and Matthew "record entirely different nativity stories" seems not entirely accurate. There are details in one that the other does not mention, and vice versa, but that does not make them "entirely different." --LawrenceTrevallion 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "Jesus Christ"

Sometime in May 2006, the intro sentence was changed from "...celebrates the birth of Jesus" to "...celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ". Per Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, religious honorifics are generally omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations. Thus Wikipedia typically does not use titles such as "Jesus Christ" or "Prophet Muhammad".[4][5] This article presents a unique situation, however, in that the subject of the article is clearly related to Jesus' religious title. Perhaps we could come up with a solution that addresses this while still maintaining adherance to the neutral point of view policy. For example, perhaps we could edit the first sentence to say "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, claimed to be the "Christ" or Messiah by his followers." What are other people's thoughts on this? Kaldari 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this specifically cited somewhere or is this an interpretation? --Elliskev 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific issue of religious titles is addressed in the Manual of Style (see first link above). The Manual of Style is not official policy, however, and thus not enforcable. The NPOV policy, however, which is enforcable, states that subjects must be presented without bias, "including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others." This has usually been interpreted to mean that religious honorifics should be avoided. This is actually a much bigger issue for Islamic subjects, where extensive honorifics are the norm, e.g. "Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)" rather than just "Muhammad". Kaldari 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few pages of debate on whether or not the term "Jesus Christ" is POV here:[6]. The outcome of that debate was to rename the Jesus Christ article to just Jesus. Personally, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another, but I think we should try to be consistant at least. Kaldari 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• We could state "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, known widely as Jesus Christ...", as per similarities at the current Jesus article introduction?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about or "...celebrates the birth of Jesus, known by his followers as Jesus Christ..."? I don't think we should leave it as just "widely". -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But it is true that he is widely referred to as Jesus Christ outside of Christianity, even in secular media [7], [8]. There was discussion about this at the Jesus page and it was decided that instead of saying "even by atheists, he is known as Jesus Christ", that it would be said "he is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ". I think that if we're not going to say "Jesus Christ" in the article that we should at least acknowledge the fact that he is widely known as this outside Christianity. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Christ and Christmas

Of course the article is too long and needs some trimming. But to drop the sections on the nativity, star of Bethlehem, and the year of Christ's birth while leaving the sections on decorations and economics strikes me as an effort to deChristianize the holiday. The secular aspects of the holiday are completely different depending on time period and country. It's Christ and Christianity that are the core of the holiday and what makes Christmas Christmas. If the nativity isn't part of the "actual holiday," what is?

On the issue of these subjects being covered elsewhere: That's par for the course in Wikipedia. Christmas is a high profile article. To let some relatively obscure article drive it's content is to let the tail wag the dog.Kauffner 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on the nativity has never been removed as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you're referring to about the nativity not being part of the "actual holiday"? Who said that? As for the other two sections, they seem only tangentally related to Christmas. I would much rather be able to follow a link to read about the Star of Bethlehem or the debate about the year Jesus was born, rather than having to scroll through it all here. We might as well have sections on Mistletoe and the Virgin Mary if we're going to include such semi-related material. Kaldari 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Arianism

I reworked the following paragraph:

As Constantine ended persecution, Christians began to debate the nature of Christ. Some argued that he was the divine word made flesh (see John 1:14), others that he was born human and infused with the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (see Mark 1:9-11).

The last sentence sounds like Adoptionism rather than Arianism. While I am not very familiar with the specifics of Arian theology, I do not believe that sentence adequately reflects their theology since they thought Christ was a created being less than God. If I am incorrect, please change it back and I apologize. LawrenceTrevallion 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The passage is not about Arianism or adoptionism. Christmas was created post-Nicene Council, so trinitarian issue was already resolved. It refers to the debate between the schools of theology in Alexandria (John, Christ as logos) and Antioch (Mark, Jesus born human). The Antioch view is the basis for the Nestorian heresy that evolved somewhat later. We don't have documentation concerning why Christmas was declared a feast day, but this was Christianity's the hot button issue at the time.Kauffner 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoting a Christology

This sentence needs a citation:

A feast celebrating Christ's birth gave the church an opportunity to promote the intermediate view that Christ was divine from the time of his incarnation.

This is a theory and needs some citation. I will leave the sentence for now. LawrenceTrevallion 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Xmas Background

Is there an Xmas background you can use on your userpage? 49Untouchable 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Holiday?

This article on the whole is very non-POV, especially the opening sentence "Christmas is a Christian holiday held on December 25 which celebrates the birth of Jesus."

Maybe it is because I live in Japan, but Christmas is celebrated as a secular holiday by millions all over the world, without any connection with Christianity. Identifying it excusively as a Christian holiday in the opening sentence seems to be promoting an agenda, rather than reporting objectively on Christmas.MightyAtom 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, you contradict yourself by saying "this article is very non-POV"...you probably mean "this article is very POV". Second, Christmas is a Christian holiday regardless of its secular customs. Christmas is not celebrated as a secular holiday by millions around the world, the secular aspects OF Christmas are celebrated by millions, and some choose to celebrate only these aspects. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it as a Christian holiday is your choice; it is. Saying this article is POV is ridiculous. --142.176.76.110 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. I mean this article is POV. But I disagree with your strong assertment that Christmas IS a Christmas holiday. Many are completely unaware of the Christian aspects of Christmas at all, but still actively celebrate the holiday. In actual practice, the Christian aspects take a backseat to the secular aspects, and the wikipedia article should address this.

To remove christianity from Christmas, in my opinion, would be as nonsensical as removing Islam from Ramadan Fasting, or Judaism from Pessah(passover). Maybe this article could be split in separate entity: 1. Christmas (Christian Religious feast) and 2. Chrismas ( Civilian Holiday). What do you think? Boris Crépeau 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the opening sentence on Halloween "Halloween is an observance celebrated on the night of October 31, most notably by children dressing in costumes and going door-to-door collecting sweets or money. It is celebrated in much of the Western world, though most common in the United States, Puerto Rico, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (where its popularity is increasing). "

That is a nice, objective opening sentence. Christmas should have something along that lines. MightyAtom 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Another bit on this. In the court case "Ganulin v. United States (1999)" Christmas was noted as being "largely secularized," giving employers the right to offer it as a day off work. This is probably worth mentioning in the article as well. MightyAtom 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article IS presented objectively. It explains that this holiday is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, which is the true definition of this holiday. Explaining otherwise, such as that its secular aspects are more prominent, is assuming a POV. You do not have any citations that so many people ignore the religious aspects of Christmas. Just because many people celebrate the secular aspects publicly does not mean that they do not acknowledge or appreciate the birth of Jesus. These secular aspects are used to enhance the celebration of Jesus's birth, not to astray from it. Yes, some may have taken this too far but it's certainly not worth noting in the opening paragraph. Christmas is the birth of Jesus. --142.176.76.110 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as stated, for many millions of people, including the 125,000,000 population of Japan and myself, Christmas has no association with Christianity or Jesus in anyway, but is still a celebrated holiday.

There are citations for this, including the aforementioned "Ganulin v. United States (1999)," which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001, recognizing the importance of the secular aspects of Christmas in the US.

"The Court holds that under Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent the establishment of Christmas Day as a legal public holiday does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has a valid secular purpose, it does not have the effect of endorsing religion in general or Christianity in particular, and it does not impermissibly cause excessive entanglement between church and state."

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/25.html

A more objective opening could be

"Christmas is an observance celebrated on December 25, with many religious and secular aspects including the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations. "

MightyAtom 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, this is a pointless argument. I for one disagree with your assertions of the Christmas holiday, and the rewording is horribly POV. "Christmas is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, with many religious, secular, and regional customs" is the truth here. Atheists/non-Christian celebrants of Christmas cannot hide from the fact that this is a Christian holiday. Why do you think elementary schools across the US forbid even a mention of Christmas or ban the colors red and white even! Because this is a strictly Christian holiday. That's not POV that's fact. --142.176.56.138 02:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly it isn't a pointless argument. It is not a fact that Christmas is a strictly Christian holiday. As stated in the above court case, Christmas if legally recognized as a concurrent secular celebration as well as a religious one. The birth of Jesus is just one of many things celebrated at Christmas, and by no means universally celebrated by all those who observe Christmas. Many hundreds of millions of human beings experience and enjoy a Christmas that has no connection to Christianity or Jesus.

Also, please explain as to how the reworded sentence is POV. It is very neutral, being taken from the Halloween article, and acknowledges both the religious and secular aspects of the holiday.MightyAtom 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although mainly a list, American Christmas traditions does a good job showing the various religious and secular aspects of Christmas, and is a good example of an appropriate tone.MightyAtom 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• If this doesn't prove to you that Christmas is considered completely religious, then it at least proves Americans are nuts:

"Last year, my daughter's "Holiday concert" consisted of one Hanukkah song, a song about Mozart and was void of the word "Christmas" spoken or in any songs. She was asked to replace the word "Christmas" on a project with "holiday" on a craft she made. She was told she could not bring in cards with baby Jesus on them. A Christian mom wanted to share the story of Christmas with her daughter's class as a follow-up to a mom who shared the Hannukah story with the same class and was told she could not say the word "Jesus" and could only talk about reindeer, Santa, etc. The best yet: a sign was placed in the entrance hallway to the school which said, "Whatever it is you celebrate — Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice or December 25" — the word "Christmas" was changed to "December 25."".

Source:[9]. --142.176.58.156 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• What this is is an example of schools completely misinterpreting the legal precedents in recognition of religious holidays and going overboard in a paranoid attempt to avoid litigation. It's unfortunately quite common, but will decrease as time goes on and more people understand the actual state of the current legal thinking. Powers ^T 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally know how to solve this. Put up the Navity but have everyone look skeptical. I got the idea from a Jewish stand-up comic.--Yan

Hi MightyAtom. The fact remains that Christmas is indeed a Christian holiday. You are probably confusing it with December 25/Winter holiday, which is the generic secular way of celebrating this date. In an article about Christmas, trying to belittle its Christian origins would show unacceptable bias and an anti-religious POV. Cheers, Brisvegas 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Christian nature of Christmas should be belittled, but nor should it be aggrandized.

As I have said before, many hundreds of millions of human beings celebrate Christmas every year, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday" or anything else, and they do it from an entirely secular manner with no relation to Christianity in any way. That is a fact. The Supreme Court of the USA has decided that Christmas, as it is practiced in the US, is largely secularized. That is also a fact.

That's why there should be an opening sentence that acknowledges both the Christian and secular nature of Christmas, one that is neutral without advancing a particular viewpoint.

Take a look again at this sentence, borrowed from the article on Halloween:

"Christmas is an observance celebrated on December 25, with many religious and secular aspects including the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations. "

Can anyone give a direct, unbiased reply as to why this is a POV opening sentence, or perhaps write a better one that acknowledges and includes both religious and secular observations of Christmas without giving dominance of one over others?

MightyAtom 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I quite like your proposed sentence. However, it is inaccurate as some Christians observe Christmas on January 7, because of their use of the Julian calendar. Also, Christmas occurs in winter only in the Northern Hemisphere. A proposed opening paragraph would be:

"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour. In fact, the word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός)."

While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.

In the developed world, Christmas has become the most economically significant holiday of the year. The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to do at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations.

In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.

What are your opinions of the revised lead? It is a little more accurate and still strives to achieve neutrality. Everyone's opinion is welcome. Brisvegas 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I love it! Great opening sentence!

One other minor suggestion. Shouldn't this bit:

---

While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.

---

..be moved as the opening sentence of the History section?

Cheers for the good discussion! On a side note, I haven't lived in the US for awhile, so it appears this has become some sort of new political issue...if so, that's a shame. When I was a wee tyke, we always had Christmas parties, Jesus-free and with no nativity scene or anything, at school every year. Just lots of snowmen, Santa, candy canes, reindeer and christmas trees, but it was definitely Christmas, not "Winter Holiday." :P

MightyAtom 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand MightAtom's complaint. It was mentioned earlier that there is a December 25th holiday which is entirely secular, but MightyAtom refuted this saying they celebrated Christmas. Why is it Christmas you are celebrating and not the winter holiday? If you remove all references to Christ, it does not seem that the name Christmas fits. LawrenceTrevallion 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• MightyAtom's complaints are futile and pointless. Think of it like this, it's kinda stupid but: You go to Bob's birthday party one day and you eat cake, play games, and yet refuse to celebrate the fact that it's Bob's birthday. You say you only wanted to go to play games and eat cake, but you still call it "Bob's birthday". Would you then be allowed to rewrite the definition of "Bob's birthday" as "the celebration of playing games and eating cake for no reason"? No, the reason the day is celebrated is because it remembers the birth of Bob. Replace Bob with Jesus—replace cakes with trees—and you have Christmas. Same exact thing— OLP 1999 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• But spose Bob died centuries ago & nobody knows when his birthday was - and there are now & have long been other seasonal celebrations at almost exactly the same time of year & there are parties for that too. Now some people attend the big parties for Bob & some attend because it is also the winter holiday. As the intro stands, there is no acknowledgement that non-Christians partake of the big party too. --JimWae 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction certainly does explain that the exact date of Jesus' birth is unknown. And as for it explaining that non-Christians celebrate Christmas too, why should it? I, as a Christian, could celebrate Ramadan if I so wanted to, and heck all of my Christian or Jewish friends could. That doesn't mean we rewrite Ramadan to say "non-Muslims also celebrate this holiday". It doesn't matter—Christmas is designed to be a Christian holiday. Although there may be other seasonal celebrations around Christmas, none of them have trees, mistletoe, holly, eggnog, Santa, and so forth. Some of these aspects may be pagan in origin, but then we can add "neo-Pagans may celebrate some aspects of Christmas". When you have a tree, presents, mistletoe, and all the trimmings of Christmas, you're celebrating Christmas and Christmas is the birth of Christ, but we just happen to have many secular ways of celebrating this birth. So what if we don't just stand around saying "happy birthday Jesus", it doesn't mean one can take the secular aspects of Christmas and expect to rewrite the meaning of Christmas— OLP 1999 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1. To answer your question "Why should it?" - this is an encyclopedia, not a church bulletin.
  2. Contrary to your statements, many aspects of Xmas have their origins in pagan celebrations - trees, holly, Yule logs - and were incorporated from the pagan celebrations. Using your line of reasoning, Xns must be celebrating the pagan holidays if they include anything from these pagan celebrations. Just because non-Xns incorporate Santa (not a very religious aspect, btw) does not mean they are celebrating Jesus' birth. I am not advocating removal of anything in the intro, rather presenting reasons for including a simple statement that many non-Xns (including some Jews, who are not pagan, btw) celebrate the holiday too - though perhaps not every aspect of it --JimWae 17:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that non-Christians may choose to observe the holiday, but I think OLP1999's point is valid: does that mean it is not a Christian holiday? If I choose to celebrate Ramadan, it should not disqualify Ramadan as a Islamic holiday. LawrenceTrevallion 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • JimWae, your usage of "Xmas" instead of Christmas and even "Xns" instead of Christians (which you have likely made up) certainly suggests that you are not a fan of Christianity. Just because many people enjoy the secular side of Christmas does not certify that they do not celebrate or at least acknowledge the birth of Jesus. They enjoy the secular elements because they are fun and tradition. Don't try to make the holiday non-sectarian just because its celebration isn't restricted to in-church celebrations. I would agree that adding the fact that non-Christians celebrate the holiday is okay, but definitely not in the opening statements. That would go in "Regional customs and celebrations". The fact that non-Christians celebrate the holiday is very insignificant information.— OLP 1999 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no requirement that editors be fans of Xty, last time I looked. Calling that into question is an "argument" ad hominem - and while not vicious, still is irrelevant, unproductive, & violates WP:NPA. I am a terrible typist (particularly of -ian words, & especially if they have more i's) & tire of correcting my mistypings of Xn, Xmas, Xty - contractions of a sort that appear in the writings of James Madison, btw. People who focus on that aspect of my writing are ususally ignorant of the origins of the usage of X for Christ.
2. Both comments above overlook my explicit statement that I am not saying references to its being a Xn holiday be removed.
3. the issue of how significant its celebration by non-Xns is, is not one to be decided by personal opinion. Is it celebrated by non-Xns or not, and in what number? People have commented that it is celebrated in Japan; there's a link on the page to its widespread celebrations in India; Jewish people include aspects of it in their Festival of Lights, and even secularists celebrate it with lights & gift-giving. These are indications of its cultural influences outside its religious origins. Do we need a vote to see how many people agree that such widespread observance is noteworthy enough to include somewhere in the introduction? --JimWae 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no opposition to mention being made of its celebration by non-Christians, but I do not think that justifies altering the reference in the intro to it being a "Christian holiday." Also, I am not sure if the appropriate place for the non-Christian celebration is in the intro. Would that not be better suited as a point in the celebration section? LawrenceTrevallion 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I did not oppose inserting the information in the article, Wae, I said that it doesn't deserve a place in the intro, it goes in the celebration section.— OLP 1999 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• La! It goes in the "intro" because it is of magnitude to the definition(.) __Maysara 23:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be added into the intro because the secular and religious celebrations of Christmas are equally important, and equally valid. This is a neutral encyclopedia. It should reflect things as how they are, not how we wish they would be.

So far, on my side of the discussion, I have a Supreme Court decision, which is a very solid reference, as well as the fact that hundreds of millions of people celebrate Christmas, again, Christmas, not "Winter Holiday," which links only to a book by Arthur Ransom.

On the opposing side are quotes like "Just because many people enjoy the secular side of Christmas does not certify that they do not celebrate or at least acknowledge the birth of Jesus." Obviously, this is of little value because nor does it certify that they acknowledge the birth of Jesus. I have personally spent my whole life celebrating a Jesus-free Christmas, as does the entire nation of Japan. There is no intrinsic connection between celebrating Christmas and celebrating Jesus's birth. It is a season of giving, and of goodwill and family

Also, there seems to be some issue of the name Christmas, which of course is Christ's Mass, a fact that many celebrators of Christmas may not even be aware of. However, this is a largely irrelevant bit of trivia, much as Halloween being All Hallow's Eve, and also being a holiday with an easy mix of pagan and Christian traditions, yet no one is making an argument that Halloween is a Christian holiday.

In fact, before proceeding with this discussion, can everyone take a look at the entry on Halloween?

Now that seems like an encyclopedia article, rather than a "church pamphlet" or a "secular pamphlet."

Also, please comment on the proposed revised opening:

"Christmas is a holiday most commonly celebrated on December 25, which has evolved to encompass several religious and secular aspects including observing the birth of Jesus, exchanging gifts, the arrival of Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere. Although the celebration of winter holidays has a lengthy history, the current holiday is derived from the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus, whose birth Christians believe to satisfy Old Testament predictions regarding the arrival of a Messiah, or saviour."MightyAtom 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Halloween isn't banned in schools because of its religious status. Christmas is, even the secular parts of Christmas (some schools banned the word "Christmas", as well as Santa and Xmas Trees). Halloween has become exclusively a secular celebration, while Christmas is still primarily religious. You are coming from a Japanese POV, and there are many different views on Christmas. The actual definition of Christmas, however, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated with many secular customs. But the customs are not as important as the actual event itself, the birth of Jesus. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and that's why we need to incorporate the truth. Check any dictionary (any I mean ANY), and you will see Christmas defined solely as the celebration birth of Jesus Christ. Sure, there are many ways of celebrating his birth, including the secular ways, but regardless of how many people choose to singularly use the secular parts, that redefines nothing. Your proposal is like renaming Easter to be the celebration of "the Easter Bunny and chocolate eggs", or like renaming Hanukkah to say "the celebration of getting eight gifts and lighting eight candles". No. Those are the properties of the holiday. The secular customs will stay in the "Regional customs and celebrations" section, where they belong.— OLP 1999 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your tone suggests to me that you feel you own the article, or get to unilaterally decide what others may put in. Is that your intention? --JimWae 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• ??? It isn't me who is trying to change the article, it is you and some other users. I am trying to keep it as is—correct. Just because I'm defending the status of this article that has been roughly the same for a year doesn't mean I claim to "own" the article. There are several users who agree with me, as per above.— OLP 1999 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, before this edit on May 31, 2006 the secular aspects were long included in the intro. A later edit Jun 8 removed even more mention of the secular aspects. I am referring to your statements such as The secular customs will stay in the "Regional customs and celebrations" section, where they belong.--JimWae 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The diff you provided is perfectly acceptable in my view. It says "...celebrates the birth of Jesus with religious and secular aspects". That verifies my point that the holiday is about the birth of Jesus, and that the secular aspects are only of secondary importance. That revision is fine, what you're proposing (or MightyAdam) is not. As for where I said "the secular customs will stay in the "Regional customs...", I was referring to the explanation of these customs. Saying that secular customs are used but are used to celebrate the birth of Jesus (as per the diff) is fine IMO.— OLP 1999 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Halloween IS banned in many schools, by those who "view the big October bacchanalia as a quasi-religious holiday and have stopped celebrating it--in much the same way schools nationwide have dispensed with Christmas and Hanukkah because of church-state debates."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/48/story_4828_1.html

MightyAtom 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica says in their introduction to Christmas:

---

Since the early 20th century, Christmas has also been a secular family holiday, observed by Christians and non-Christians alike, devoid of Christian elements, and marked by an increasingly elaborate exchange of gifts. In this secular Christmas celebration, a mythical figure named Santa Claus plays the pivotal role.

---

MightyAtom 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion

on non-Xn aspects & non-Xn participation as significant part of Christmas

I have not provided my specific proposal yet. I have provided evidence that the article previously did give more prominence to the secular aspects - as it should. But, you go too far if you think the earlier article verifies your point of view. You do not seem yet to understand why I object to your language. You are speaking imperiously when you use the royal will above. --JimWae 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to suggest that non-Xns are "celebrating the birth of Jesus" when they participate in Xmas --JimWae 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue any further. To avoid confusion, I will state my personal position as follows: I do not object to referring to the fact that Christmas has secular aspects in the opening, as long as it is explained that they are "aspects", and that the birth of Jesus is the pivotal event. I do not object to referring to the fact that many non-Christians celebrate these aspects. I do however, object to explaining that these aspects are as equally as significant as the birth of Jesus when it comes to defining the holiday. I will review your aformentioned new proposal and offer my comments then, JimWae. I completely object to MightyAdam's proposed changes, however.— OLP 1999 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a Supreme Court decision, and an entry from the Encyclopædia Britannica supporting my proposed changes, and so far little else has been provided on the opposing side other than personal opinion and hearsay. I sense more than a little bit of bias going on, and of promoting of a personal viewpoint.

I don't see the harm in stating that the religious and secular aspects of Christmas are equally valid, and equally important. This would be an accurate representation of the holiday in the modern word, and would allow for a neutral tone without advancing one over the other.

MightyAtom 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See Secularization of Christmas, Spring holiday, and the policies of almost every school in America—they will affirm to you that Christmas is a religious holiday, even the secular aspects are considered religious. It can only be one of two things: A)The holiday is Christian, B)The holiday is multicultural. If the answer is B, then schools would have no reason to ban the holiday in the public, and Christmas trees wouldn't be called Holiday trees. The secular aspects are banned as much as the Nativity, and I contest putting the secular aspects at the same level as Jesus. Put it to vote, and see if you can get consensus. I'm done arguing the subject.— OLP 1999 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's Britannica’s opening sentence defining Christmas: "Christmas, the Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus." That's a good model for our opening. The holiday is Christmas, not Santa Claus-mass. Other countries have their own traditions about gift bringers. Even in Britain, it’s Father Christmas rather than Santa Claus.

As far as Halloween goes, that’s a secular American holiday. There is no Halloween feast day or liturgy. The only religious connection is that it is the day before All Saints’ Day.Kauffner 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, those two articles crack me up! I know that the US is prone to fits of collective insanity from time to time, but does anyone actually say "Spring Holiday," "Winter Holiday" or "Holiday Trees?" Or is this just like freedom fries, something done by a few people that was overblown by the media?

Oh, and as for Halloween, the reason that is has been banned at schools is that Christians consider it a pagan holiday, promoting the devil, and have lobbied for its removal. At least that was the gist of most of the articles I read.

MightyAtom 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is indeed yes, people do say "Spring holiday", "winter holiday" and "holiday trees". And also no, this is not like the "freedom fries" phenomenon; this has been growing since the late 1980s and has almost obliterated public mention of Christmas to date. "Holiday tree" is the most popular of sayings, and was used controversially by Lowe's([http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47600]) in 2005, as well as by many small-town America city organized "Holiday tree lightings". See also here, here, and here for just a few examples of websites covering these issues. Search the term at Google and see more evidence. The other terms, "Spring holiday", "winter holiday", and "Spring bunny" are much less used, but are becoming increasingly popular. I see no reason as to why they won't be the norm in several years here. The point is that in the USA, Christian holidays are very much frowned upon by public establishments, more than any other non-Christian holidays or traditions. In some cases, towns that have 98% Christian populations will ban Christmas and promote Hanukkah and even Ramadan or Kwanzaa, the latter being a holiday made up in 1966 by a convicted murderer. Yes, the US is screwed up, and all this proves it. As for the debate about the Christmas intro, I've already stated my opinion and will be present to enforce that opinion if the intro. goes to a vote.— OLP 1999 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...from what I have read, the "Holiday tree" thing was a temporary fiasco, that is now over. Every is standing quite strongly on calling them Christmas trees, as they should be.

Oh, and this sentence "Kwanzaa, the latter being a holiday made up in 1966 by a convicted murderer." shows quite a bit of personal bias against beliefs and traditions that are not your own. I would be careful with that. MightyAtom 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "Holiday tree" thing is definitely not temporary, as it is still the norm for many small town public events and schools in America, including my own. Maybe you'd have to live here to understand. It's not just the trees though, customs are called "Holiday wreaths", "Holiday decorations", "Holiday Claus", "Holiday dinner", "The holiday" (used more than "winter holiday"), and the greeting "Happy Holidays". Also, my comment on Kwanzaa is completely true. Even many blacks refuse to celebrate it because of its origins and because of their Christian beliefs. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with the holiday, but have nothing against other wintertime holidays such as Hanukkah, Ramadan, Eid, or Yule. "Kwanzaa" doesn't deserve holiday status, IMO.— OLP 1999 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's really funny about replacing Christmas with Holiday is that holiday, meaning Holy Day, is no more secular a word than Christmas! :P MightyAtom 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in the US there is a certain cultural aspect called "political correctness" that is very dominant in society, and since Christianity is the majority religion here (79%, 2001), it is "politically correct" to "not offend" the minorities. It goes as far as censoring the celebrations of the majority to accustom to the minorities. The term "holiday" is likely used because, although it is religious in etymology, it is not exclusively Christian. The word "Christmas", however, is Christian, and public schools, city councils, and even retailers alike do not want to promote Christianity because of political correctness and also separation of Church and state. However, IMO, minor religions aren't treated as harshly whereas towns would have "Holiday tree and Hanukkah Menorah lighting" ceremonies, which is blatantly promoting Judaism and violates aforementioned separation of Church and state, and is political correctness run amok.— OLP 1999 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Eid and Ramadan are not wintertime holidays. Powers ^T 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean yes. It is a Christian holiday. Secular people do often celebrate Christmas, but its not like they invented their own holiday, their celebration is still very much derivative from the Christian tradition. Non-Jews may celebrate Hanukkah, but that doesn't make it a non-Jewish holiday. Similarly, Saint Patrick's Day is an Irish holiday, even though its celebrated throughout the world (though the secularization of this one is such that I wouldn't describe it as "Christian" in the first sentence). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another compromise offer

Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).

While most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to be the actual birthdate of Jesus.

The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to its status as a winter festival. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practiced, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.

Includes both religious and secular aspects, giving prominence to both. Thoughts? To answer your earlier question MightyAtom (cool name by the way), the date of observance part should probably stay in the lead, because it is a critical piece of information that a reader should quickly be able to access. Brisvegas 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Another job well done, Brisvegas! You do a good job balancing the different aspects all together. MightyAtom 09:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs are ok, but the third paragraph starts with POV, and is entirely dedicated to secular and/or pagan origins. The popularity of Christmas is more likely due to the dominance of Christianity in Western culture, as well as the world (33% around the world, Islam is second with 21%). More information and summarization of the story of the Nativity needs to be incorporated here, and overall I would have to be against the proposal. The first two paragraphs are okay. And in the second paragraph where it says "most Christians observe the birth of Jesus on December 25..", "the birth of Jesus" should be replaced with "Christmas".— OLP 1999 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I think the first half of the third paragraph is a bit too much detail. Start with "In Western culture]]" and it's good. Powers ^T 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We don’t need to mention "December 25" twice in three paragraphs. Why mention "Northern Hemisphere"? I assume it’s an allusion to the summer/winter reversal. But readers who know about this don’t need to be reminded and those who don’t know aren’t going to get it.

The secular Christmas concept was developed to allow the public school in US to celebrate a version of Christmas. As far as the Japanese go, they don’t know enough about the holiday to tell the two versions apart, so I don’t buy the idea that they are celebrating secular Christmas.

Here’s my suggested opening:

Christmas is a festival that marks the birth of Jesus, founder of Christianity. Gift-giving, Santa Claus, and the nativity play prominent roles in the celebration.Kauffner 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspects to add

-if not already included

Gift Giving

It is the emphasis on gift-giving (allegedly derived from St. Nicholas/Santa Claus) that makes it so important economically. Stores hire extra staff to help buyers find the things they want in the store. The emphasis on shopping for the right gift, and getting gifts for all who will gift you (and spending the "right amount"), and getting it all done on time, while also getting out those Xmas cards also increases stress levels (study can be cited) & many people say they need a holiday from the holiday. Following the holiday, many gifts are returned to the stores, though many stores have a policy that they will not accept returns the first few days. Stores sell items at reduced prices after Christmas, enticing people to buy some of the things that they wanted but did not receive as gifts.

Family Gatherings

Many people travel great distances to gather with other family members. Airplanes are full, & airfares rise over the holidays. While many people are happy to visit with family, many couples also feel obliged not to play favorites in the amount of time spent visiting parents on opposite sides of the family. Families gather for large meals & exchanging gifts.

Holiday Lights

Many lighting decorations are sold, with newly invented ones replacing older ones every few years. Even many non-Christians decorate their house with lights to cheer the long winter nights. People go on outings just to see the lighted displays in plazas, stores, and at other homes.

Time Off

Most schools & colleges close from before Dec 25 until after Jan 1 - some for 2 weeks or more. Besides being closed on Dec 25 & Jan 1, many offices close early on Christmas Eve & on New Years's Eve, and often close or have reduced hours on other days between the 2 holidays.

--JimWae 07:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Aside from its religious significance, the holiday has gradually adopted secular customs as well, including ostentatious festive decorations, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and the exchange of presents among family and friends, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year due to the increase in consumer spending. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse. It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because the Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).

While most Christians observe Christmas on December 25, Eastern Orthodox Churches using the Julian Calendar to determine feast days celebrate Christmas on January 7 by the Gregorian Calendar. Both dates are merely traditional and neither is thought to reflect the actual birthdate of Jesus. Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later.

The popularity of Christmas can be traced in part to the dominance of Christianity as the largest world religion, with approximately 2 billion adherents and also due to the holiday's status as a winter festival in the Northern Hemisphere. Many cultures have their most important holiday in winter because there is less agricultural work to be done at this time. Examples of winter festivals that are believed by some to have influenced Christmas include the pre-Christian festivals of Yule and Saturnalia, and many of the traditions associated with the holiday have origins in these pagan winter celebrations. In Western culture, the holiday is characterized by the exchange of gifts among friends and family members, some of the gifts being attributed to Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, and Father Frost). Other notable customs include the closure of most businesses and schools during the holiday season, the singing of Christmas carols, intricate light displays and family gatherings. However, various local and regional Christmas traditions are still practised, despite the widespread influence of American, British and Australian Christmas motifs disseminated by film, popular literature, television, and other media.

Overall a good opening, but I have one suggestion. I think "Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. Efforts to decide upon a date on which to celebrate his birth began some centuries later." should come right after "Christmas is a holiday traditionally observed by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus." at the very beginning, to balance the introduction's mention of Christmas's religious and secular customs.— OLP 1999 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Christ's birth, or nativity, was said by his followers to fulfill the prophecies of Judaism that a messiah would come, from the house of David, to redeem the world from sin. is not about Xmas, but about Xn religious beliefs - it does not belong in the intro.--JimWae 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it is about Christmas. You seem to think that Christmas is somehow different than Hanukkah or Passover or any other religious holiday just because it has secular aspects and is observed by non-Christians because of the influence from 2.1 billion Christians. This explains the significance of the birth of Jesus, just as the next sentences explain the significance of Santa Claus and that Christmas is the most economically significant holiday of the year. We can't have a article for a religious holiday be so secularly biased.— OLP 1999 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is about Xn beliefs about Jesus - and certainly does not merit inclusion in the very first paragraph. The article is about the holiday - not who Christinas think Jesus was. And it was not his birth that "redeemed the world from sin"--JimWae 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A little maxim I use on the Pedia to keep sane is that the best compromise is one in which no-one is fully satisfied. It is clear that some feel the lead should give the Christian aspects more prominence, while others would want even less attention devoted to this and prefer the secular aspects to be emphasised more. In the spirit of wikilove/compromise/etc, would most of you be happy with the latest proposal? Brisvegas 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with any changes at all. I suggest you post this talk page at RfC and get more people's opinion. You can attempt concensus. I for one, think the current status of Christmas is absolutely fine, and the original author of this section isn't even involved in the conversation anymore, so there's no need to debate anything— OLP 1999 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to discuss the secular vs religious issue in the first graph. Just give the reasons for holiday (birth of Jesus, winter celebration) and describe how it is celebrated (nativity, gift-giving, Christmas trees, time off from work, time spent with family, and Santa Claus).Kauffner 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Raine Maida's advice, I posted this on Request for Comments page. Hopefully we can come to a resolution that everyone can live with.MightyAtom 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A Requested Comment

In response to the RFC, I definitely agree that Christmas is not 'just' a Christian holiday. It certainly is a Christian holiday, it certainly is a holiday with a Christian history, but lots of people around the world celebrate it with little or no religious motivation.

The clearest evidence of this is that come Christmas time, an ever-increaing portion of the discourse seems to revolve around the perceived increasing Secularization of Christmas. I know there's been a judicial ruling or two that held that Christmas is a secular holiday (obviously, not to the exclusion if it ALSO being a Christian holiday).

To me, the way to handle might be to include a paragraph or two explicitly talking about the debate about whether christmas as christian-vs-secular holiday.

--Alecmconroy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the RFC. What do you think of this compromise?

Christmas is a holiday commonly observed on December 25, traditionally marked by Christians to honour the birth of Jesus. Over time, the holiday has absorbed several secular customs, including from earlier pagan winter festivals such as the exchange of presents among family and friends, the arrival of gift-bearers such as Santa Claus and various winter celebrations in the Northern Hemisphere, making it one of the most economically significant holidays of the year. The word Christmas is derived from Middle English Christemasse and from Old English Cristes mæsse.[1] It is a contraction meaning "Christ's mass". The name of the holiday is often shortened to Xmas because Roman letter "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), an abbreviation for Christ (Χριστός).

MightyAtom 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Chistmas gift-giving is derived from a pagan holiday? The American gift-giving tradition is transferred from the Dutch St. Nicholas celebration (Dec. 6), which was brought to the US by Dutch settlers in New York.Kauffner 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most researches on the history of Christmas trace the tradition of presents during the Winter Soltice to the Roman Feast of Kalends, first branches of an evergreen tree and then later cakes and honey.MightyAtom 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Most researches" ==> people who happen to agree with. Kalends corresponds to New Year's Day. The strenae custom has survived in France and other Catholic countries, but I don't think it was ever an American custom.Kauffner 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look?

Just as a little background on this, maybe take a look at The History Channels "History of Christmas."

http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas

MightyAtom 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the turkey?

Here in the UK it is traditional to eat turkey on Christmas, not ham. There is no mention of this in the article. I find it interesting that the Germanic peoples apparently ate ham and that this has survived in America but not the UK. It would be interesting to see where the tradition of turkeys came from.--Jcvamp 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some do eat turkey on Christmas, but I think for most Americans turkey is the traditional food of Thanksgiving, which happens in the previous month. MightyAtom 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, even if Americans do sometimes eat turkey on Christmas, I'd still like to know where this tradition came from. From my own research on the subject, it looks as though goose was usually the meat eaten at Christmas, later being replaced by the turkey. I'm still looking into it though.--Jcvamp 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe it was just cheaper? Looking forward to seeing your research.MightyAtom 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found different sources on the subject. Some say boar was the tradition, others say goose. There's also mention of things like peacocks and swans. I don't know what I can do with this information due to the 'no original research' rule. I think, however, that it obvious to anyone who's been in England at Christmas time, that we eat turkeys (something which isn't covered by the article). It's also obvious that goose was once a tradition (the most notable reference to this is Charles Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol').--Jcvamp 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some information at http://www.uttertrivia.com/christmasturkey.php about why we eat turkey at Christmas in the UK (it's reliability could be questionable, however, but it's as good a source as any). It was in the 16th Century when turkey was first imported from America. Eating swans for Christmas lunch seems highly unlikely at any time in history, since the hunting of swans - the property of the monarch and therefore, treason - would have been punishable by beheading.--IanUK 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the titbit about the swans. There still is no mention of turkeys in the UK in this article... I'm not sure really how to insert it.--Jcvamp 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bethleham?

In the section called 'Nativity' one part reads 'As they travel to Bethleham, the magi follow a star'. Surely this should be Bethlehem?--Jcvamp 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed. For simple spelling errors, you should be able to just go ahead and correct them without discussion, I think! MightyAtom 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was intentional. I feel bad about just making changes in case I screw things up.--Jcvamp 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about that. If you make a mistake, it's easily undone! Powers ^T 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Chrismas in the arts...

I feel like Charlie Brown writing this... and I'm not sure how or even if it should be worked in, but it seems in the past 10 years or so, everything has to have a Christmas edition. Most tv shows have "The Christmas Episode". It seems every top40 star has to come out with their annual Christmas song. Every candy has to have it's special packaging, etc... It's as if corporations are waking up to the fact that people like xmas, people get sentimental about it, and that if they make a special widget or whatever, their sales go up even more. I guess it's hard to say who should be able to have a special or not - I'm quite fond of the old McDonald commercials w/ Ronald helping the one kid who can't ice skate...so whose to say that Skittles can't have a Christmas (er... Happy Holidays) commercial as well. But it just seems like too much of a bombardment and it has lost the specialness of it.

Like the man said "Christmas has become too commercial." Guess I'm just getting old! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon (talk • contribs) .

Ha! I think that complaining that "Christmas has become too commercial" is a tradition in and of itself, passed down generation to generation! In 1850 Harriet Beacher Stowe wrote a story where one of the characters complains that Christmas has become too commercial, not like when she was a child. :P MightyAtom 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

December 24th or 25th?

I was surfing around on a forum just a couple of minutes ago and I saw a post that said "most people celebrate it [Christmas] on the 25th", and that didn't sound right to me. I came here to check it out, and it seems that the article is slightly "biased" towards an American point of view, which it shouldn't be (it shouldn't be european biased either, but instead rather neutral). It is also misleading that, in the opening lines of the article, it says that "users of the Gregorian calendar observe the holiday on December 25", which isn't true. I'm from Denmark myself, and December 25th has never been recognised as Christmas Day. Instead it's called Second Christmas Day, and is just a normal holiday with no presents and no fancy food. So, all in all I find the article biased towards a specific cultural tradition, and I think the article's neutrality has been somewhat lost.

I agree. This article is very much biased towards the American Christmas, and specifically the American Christian Christmas. There is another Christmas worldwide article that attempts to address different Christmas traditions. However, I would also like to see more neutrality in this article. MightyAtom 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

By "neutrality" I'm assuming you mean less emphasis on the nativity of Jesus? That's not neutrality, that's secular bias. I agree the article is a little American biased, but all cultures know it celebrates the birth of Christ— OLP 1999 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

>>but all cultures know it celebrates the birth of Christ<< No, they don't. In Japan (where I happen to live) Christmas is a very popular holiday, but most people don't know that it has any association with Christianity. When I was a kid growing up in the US, I celebrated Christmas every year, and loved it (still do!). But I didn't learn about the connections with Jesus until I was older. For me it was just Santa, presents and trees.

A truly neutral article would be niether biased towards the Christian nor the secular Christmas, towards neither the American nor any other countries Christmas, but try to give equal time to all aspects of the holiday, and the various ways it is observed. MightyAtom 02:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am by no means Christian, I'm an agnostic borderline-atheist. Anyways, Christmas is a Christian holiday and has been for a long time. It has become increasingly secularized and that should be mentioned and have it's own section, but we should at least define it as a Christian holiday celebrating the (supposed) birth of Christ like the article does now in the opening sentence. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an atheist as well, but I still respect religion and religious people (to a certain point, though). I think a lot of people feel like me, that christmas is a much needed year-ending holiday, a break. I think the religious aspect of christmas has been decreasing through the years, and it is just a holiday for the "average joe".

Anyway, this isn't really what the discussion is about. It's about rewriting some of the things in this article to achieve a more neutral or 50/50-balancing point of view. Any non-christian (and any American who doesn't know about Central-European christmas) could read this article and walk away with the impression that christmas is mainly celebrated on the 25th, and that's is just not the case. I searched through the article and did not find a single reference to the 24th being Christmas day in some countries, but the 25th was mentioned several times throughout the whole article.

If this content is to be kept, I think it should be either merged with or renamed to American Christmas. |Paavono 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I recognize Christmas's secular traditions, even I have to admit that the name, at least, is derived from "Christ's Mass", and as far as I know, the date of that holy day is always 25 December. Are there really some countries that explicitly name 24 December as "Christmas Day"? It seems a bit bizarre. I note that the 24 December article does mention that gifts are exchanged on this day in many countries, but gives no indication that they actually call it "Christmas Day". Heck, even people in the US sometimes have their celebrations on Christmas Eve, but we don't change the name to correspond. =) Powers ^T 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the name Christmas is derived from "Christ's Mass," in the exact same way that the name Halloween is derived from "All Hallow's Eve," and even the word "holiday" is derived from "Holy Day." However, those are nothing more than interesting entomology. MightyAtom 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Loooooooooooong

OK, a new question for everyone! This article is really long, and hard to navigate. What does everyone think about chopping it up a bit, and making it more user-friendly? Some of the sections, like Santa Claus and Nativity of Jesus already have solid articles, and probably don't need to be represented here more than just a slight intro and a link to the daughter pages. Some of the other longer sections could probably be daughtered off, or at least sub-catagorized to enable easier reading. What you think? MightyAtom 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is overlong and needs to be trimmed. It certainly seems reasonable to prune sections that are well-represented elsewhere, and provide links to the more in-depth articles. The two you mention are good examples of strong independent articles. Also, the section "Reformation and modern times" seems lengthy, or at least somewhat cluttered. I wonder if it could be tightened up a little somehow? This is a good article, but it could use some polish before the holdays are actually upon us. Since I'm new to the page and it has a long history, I certainly won't be making any changes without discussion :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the article some more (and reverting a couple of vandalisms in the process) I have two questions/suggestions:

1. In "The economics of Christmas", the last paragraph seems U.S.-centric. Is it really necessary in an article about an international holiday? I don't think that either the section or the article would really suffer if it were removed.
2. I've never seen an article with 14 images before. Are all 14 necessary to the article? I think that part of what makes some sections look cluttered is that there are just too many images.

--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the content of this article to be driven by the content of articles elsewhere is to let the tail wag the dog. A Christmas article certainly needs to cover the nativity. I'd cut out a lot of the stuff in the last half the article about timing of gifts, decorations, regional customs, and the economics of Christmas. A lot is unsourced and much of the rest is trivial. In one country they give gifts on day X and in another country they do it on day Y and so what? We actually have a whole paragraph on wrapping paper. Also, we don't need an economist to tell us that Christmas gifts cost money. Kauffner 10:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not suggesting any section be removed; just that long sections which already have good articles can be reduced. I also agree that the number of dates listed is excessive and confusing.And yes, some of the Trivia bits(like wrapping paper) should certainly be reduced or eliminated, or at least rewritten for clarity. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article could reasonably be considered an exception to WP:SIZE on the basis that this article "acts as a summary and starting point" or is a "broad subject." I have reviewed the "Economics of Christmas," "Santa Claus and other bringers of gifts," "Christmas Tree and other decorations," and "Regional customs and celebrations" sections and I believe them to be informative and well-written. They would be most benefitted by Wikification, proper sourcing, and minor restructuring, particularly in "Regional customs," which could be formatted to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a trivia list. I do not mean to suggest, however, that the information is trivial — only its presentation. We must remember that Wikipedia is written to serve a worldwide perspective. Discussion of regional Christmas customs might seem superfluous to the article, but, we must remember that many readers are unfamiliar with customs outside of their own locale. Even the bit about wrapping paper. :-) -Severa (!!!) 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Links

Per MOS Wikilinks I am going to begin removing the redundant and extraneous hyperlinks. In general, A word should only be linked the first time it is used, and we should only add links when they would provide useful info to the reader about the subject of the article. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Boondocks factuality

On the show "The Boondocks" Huey stated in the christmas episode that christmas was originally a pagan holiday where men would give each other gifts and the partying usually got so out of hand that they erupted into gay orgies, and the protestant church banned the holiday until 1820. Is any of this true?

The first few words are true "...christmas was originally a pagan holiday...", but the bit about gay orgies is utter nonsense. I suspect that "The Boondocks" may not meet WP's criterion for a reliable source :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other dates of celebration

This section seems to be totally redundant. There is almost nothng in here that isn't repeated in one or more sections elsewhere. Clearly some of the excess needs to be trimmed. Would it be better to trim the redundant content from other sections, or could we just remove this one entirely? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Christ's own words" ??

Rather than engage in a revert war over what has become a content dispute, I'm bringing this to the Talkpage. I am adamantly opposed to including this material in the article in any section. It is an overt POV that is completely unrelated to this topic. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sermon. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The first sentence of the article already indicates that Christmas commemorates Christ's birth. The quotes don't add anything and their inclusion makes the article sound preachy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on the sound of the article is POV. Because the article's subject is indisputely related to Christ, his own words concerning his birth are relevant. They are not the author's POV, but direct quotations from a reliable source that is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.215.153 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for responding here. Please note that the comments you've received and the actions of several other editors who have reverted your material all indicate a strong concensus against including this material. Continued attempts to insert material that has been clearly been rejected by a majority of editors could be considered disruptive, and might result in blocking. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my argument, but are asserting that the consensus is authoratative. The content has been accused of being irrelevant, POV, and other editors have indicated they just didn't like it. I have shown the relevance of the material which is obvious. It is not my POV, but the article's subject's own words. Just because you find it offensive from your POV, isn't a good reason to threaten blocking another editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 (talk • contribs) .

The quotes are related to Christ's birth, not the celebration of Christmas per se. Though Christmas commerates Christ's birth, it is not synonymous with the event. There are appropriate ways to add Bible quotes (or quotes from any holy book) if they add to the subject. I fail to see what adding the quotes to this article does, other than try to make a statement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that these are Christ's own words is a POV. A belief that is Christian. Non-christians have other beliefs about this. There is also serious scholarship that disputes how much of what is attributed to Christ in the New Testament was actually said by him. To be WPian, both POV's must be cited from reputable sources, or neither should be. Granted that this article is already over the size guideline, it be easiest to just leave the words out. They add nothing substantial to the article. Lentower 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You have your opinion and your POV. However, the bible is a reputable source and it is correctly cited. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it less reputable than any other source. If you want to dispute the bible, that's a personal issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.215.153 (talk • contribs) .

The Bible is not considered a reputable source by many people. In fact a majority of the people on the Earth. It is a recognized and notable source, and is OK to use on WP when cited within WP guidelines.

Disputing the Bible is more then just a personal issue - it concerns many scholars, athetists, agnostics, philosophers, etc. Lentower 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is not over whether you or anyone else believes what the bible says. The dispute is over whether or not the bible attributes those words to Jesus or not. The bible clearly does.

Too long, part 2

NOTE: The Article size guidelines recommend that an article shouldn't normally exceed approximately 32kb. Since this one is currently 44kb, it looks like we need to trim quite a bit; nearly 1/4 of the total. It doesn't need to be exactly 32kb, but it's clearly too long, and trimming just a few words from each section won't be enough. I'm going to start by removing the "Other dates" section as I suggested above. Almost all the material in there appears earlier in the article as well. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I whacked "Other dates" with an axe, and it only shaved 2kb off the overall length. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it down to 37kb now! Keep up the good work everyone! MightyAtom 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

After some brilliant editing by MightyAtom, and some blatant butchery on my own part, this article is now 33kb, a near-perfect size. At this point we should carefully review any new material added to the article with an eye towards whether or not it constitutes a significant improvement. More rewrite and reformatting is probably still in order, but it would be easy for the length to get out of hand again if we're not careful. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead Image

The "lead image" (the first one readers see after the infobox) is currently the somewhat dreary "Catacombs" painting. "Adorazion del Bambino", now in the Nativity section, seems like a much stronger visual representation of the birth of Jesus and the Christian origins of the holiday. Also, in terms of aesthetics, "Adorazion" is probably one of the better images in the article overall. Would it make sense to move it into the lead position? IMHO it would give the article a more immediate visual appeal. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the lead image should be changed, although I think that the image of the Christmas tree would be a better lead image. In general, the Christmas Tree is used as a symbol for Christmas, such as on calenders, or in the movie Nightmare before Christmas, where the door to Christmastown was a tree. What do you think? MightyAtom 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right the Christmas Tree is more universal, hence might be a better lead. In that case, "Adorazion" is still perfect in Nativity. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the tree to the top, but I'm not sure the positioning is quite right. Let me know what you think, or just play around with it yourself. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good in the infobox. I really like the new streamlined "Nativity" section too. This is looking better :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an image of a Christmas tree is a more universal image. Decorating a Christmas tree is practice which occurs in both Christian and non-Christian observance of the holiday. -Severa (!!!) 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Christian origin

IMO, the new "Pre-Christian Origins of holiday" section is a lot of nonsense. It doesn't include a single reference to support the arguement that Christmas originated with any of the pagan holidays mentioned. Of course, it's easy enough to get references for pretty much any theory you want. But the story of the holiday as it was given earlier was referenced to articles published in a historian's magazine. Saturnalia was Dec. 17-22, so it can't used to explain the choice of a Dec. 25 date. I also think its sleazy that the length issue has been used as an excuse to pull the bulk of the Christian-oriented text and images, while actually adding pagan-oriented material. An unsourced paragraph about how cruelly Constantius treated Mithras followers? What a joke! Christmas is Christian holiday. Saturnalia and Mithras have their own articles.Kauffner 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, I noticed that you were a primary contributor to the earlier "History" and "Nativity" sections of the article, and I'm sorry that you feel your work was gutted. I can certainly sympathize because I've had a similar experience. Please try to understand that we are attempting to present a fair and balanced article which provides factual material about the entire history, not just its Christian origins. Since you have a different view of what material should be included, I hope that you'll work with us to produce a better article. Keep in mind however, that if we were to implement the logic that Mithras and Saturnalia shouldn't be mentioned because they ahve their own articles, we would also then remove the entire Nativity section (and others) for the same reason. It's actually standard practice to mention related topics briefly, while providing links to them for further reading, which is exactly what we've done. While it can be hard to see other contributors edit your work, I think that User:MightyAtom did an excellent job providing a concise and properly NPOV rewrite of the Nativity section. Other editors have also tried to claim that "Christmas is a Christian holiday", but this is clearly contradicted by the fact that Christmas is celebrated by tens of millions of non-christians. This makes it especially important for us to present all the material in a neutral manner. I do hope that you'll work with us to continue improving this article. Thanks for your input. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that that section is referenced. The festival of Sol Invictus being appropriated by early Christians in mentioned in the encyclopedia britannica article. I just added a link to the History Channel's "History of Christmas," which includes the information on Saturnalia and Mithras. The pagan origins of Christmas are referenced by almost all reputable, neutral sources. There are also several Christian websites that acknowledge this historical fact.

For example:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/christma.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/dec08.html

To not include the pre-Christian orgins of Christmas would be willfully censoring historical facts in order to advance a certain agenda. MightyAtom 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the section is full of controversial statements no one has referenced. The Britannica article on Christmas does not even mention Saturnalia. The Sol Invictus festival is called "one widespread explanation." Saturnalia was an Italian holiday while the Sol Invictus festival was an empire-wide national day, so they are different holidays even if some people were celebrating both at the same time. (Besides, the Romans had something like 160 holidays a year, so the fact there were pagan holidays on or around the same date as Christmas is not necessarily significant.) The earlier version on this article had material about Mithras' birthday and Saturnalia so there is no question of censorship. But I don't think that there is any way to justify the unsource claims that these holidays were definately the origin of Christmas. It is Christ and Christianity that makes Christmas Christmas. July 4 can be described as America's national day even through other people (notably Danes) celebrate it as well. As for the nativity section, it now has two sentances about the nativity before it moves on to fluff about decorations and caroling. This means we now have more about Saturnalia (not to mention Mithras) than we do about the nativity. Finally, I was astonished to discover that all references to bruma and to the winter solstice have been removed from the article.Kauffner 03:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yikes! I'm not sure how bruma and Winter Solstice got written out. Between multiple editors working at the same time, and many reverts due to vandalism, that might well have been unintentional. Thanks for pointing it out. Regarding the majority of this section, I agree that it is badly in need of cites to support its assertions. I started to search for some earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I do think that once properly cited, the material is relevant. Many people are unfamiliar with the pre-Christian history of the holiday, and it certainly merits inclusion. Regarding what seems to be one of your general concerns, no one has objected to refering to Christmas as a Christian holiday. What needs to be acknowledged in the article is the fact that a huge number of non-christians celebrate Christmas too. Just because they're not Christians doesn't mean they don't celebrate the holiday. In the spirit of working together to improve the article, would you prefer if we have discussion on the talkpage before significant changes are made? MightyAtom and I were the only ones discussing things earlier, and since we were in general agreement it was a somewhat lopsided debate :)

As far as references go, that link to "Christian History and Biography" magazine is a pretty solid reference for that section, discussing the appropriate of the date of Mithras/Sol Invictus's birthday, as well as customs transfered over from Saturnalia. I am more than happy to see that section re-written (I didn't write it myself. The person who did wrote it with some pretty heavy-handed POV, that I tried to tone down in the editing). The timeline should definitely go chronological though. MightyAtom 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the chronology and made several small edits to that effect before it was split into sections. I didn't mean to suggest replacing the cite that we've got, just to add a couple more. The first few I found weren't as strong, more like personal essays, so I didn't take them. There's definitely less POV than there was; since Kauffner has reservations about this section, let's see if he has some specific suggestions. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long, part 3

I've recently learned more about article length from Severa, a long-time editor with experience on the subject. There is an exception to Wikipedia:Article size for "top-tier articles", and apparently Christmas qualifies as such (ie, it is a parent-article with many children). Instead of a 32kb limit then, the situation is more open-ended. There are several examples of top-tier articles that run 60kb to 80kb+. This means we actually have a lot of freedom to expand coverage of existing sections, and possibly add new sections. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslims & Christmas

The link to this states that some Senagalese celebrate Chrsitmas, so it is true that even if they do this, they would be an extreme minority. The article however states - '"Officially, we Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. But the Catholics are our neighbors. So, we all celebrate all the religious holidays. We share the same houses, even graveyards. It has been the same for years," says shopkeeper El Hadj Diop sitting before his African antique store."' That makes it clear that even the Senegalese don't accept it as part of Islam, so maybe you can quote that Senagalese celebrate Christmas, but it should not be stated that any Muslims celebrate Chrsitmas as it is not true. The Islamic ruling on celebrating Christmas is clear, here is a link to two fatawa on the topic - [10] [11]Some scholars declare that anyone who does so has left the religion, so it is a major matter that is not taken lightly. This is out of our respect and love for Jesus peace be upon him, not out of anger. The reference should be dedelted as it is misleading and not true.Mecca Cola 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is copy/pasted directly from the ref:

• That is according to a story carried by Mail & Guardian of Johannesburg, on 23 December 2005, which says that in mostly Muslim Senegal, Christmas is a national holiday and "Allah's followers... madly [prepare] to celebrate [the] Christian holiday."

Since the same source refers to a population of 10.5 million, this can't be discounted as an "extreme minority". A fact regarding the customs of millions of people is certainly relevant. Regarding the links to the fatawa, we may add a section about "Litigiation about Christmas" (or similar) to address various court rulings regarding the holiday. That would certainly be an appropriate place to add those links, along with a brief explanation. Since the material you removed was worked on by several editors, and placed there by consensus of those involved, I'm going to replace it for now. Thanks, Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article might say that Christmas is celebrated by Muslims in Senegal, but not one Muslim I know in the whole of Senegal or any Senegalese ex-pat has ever celebrated Christmas in their life. Sure maybe 1 or 2 villages may, but on the whole it is unknown. I challenge anyone to bring a decent article or even a single Senegalese Muslim claiming that it is widespread and accepted. The fact is that Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. If 1 or 2 people count then we should also state in the Eid thread that Christians and Buddhists celebrate it too as I know many of them who celebrate it with us and come to the Eiid gatherings, prayers and festivals. Here are a few websites which counter that article - [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] You will see that even though a minority of Muslims may do this out of ignorance, we can't say that Muslims celebrate it as it is not a part of Islam at all. UIts like saying Muslims believe in good luck charms, simply because many Turks have them, yet they have nothing to do with Islam. When the Senegalese Muslims do this and claim it as part of their religion (Islam) then maybe you can claim it, however until then all we have is a group of Senegalese doing it, not Muslims.Mecca Cola 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add the main point - the page claims "Also, some Muslims celebrate Christmas because Islam regards Jesus as a prophet, messenger and one of the top five human servants of God." Nowhere does it say ever that these Muslims do it because Jesus peace be upon him is a prophet in Islam etc. rather it claims its done out of communal respect and harmony. At least this should be taken away as Muslims don't celebrate Christmas for this exact reason - the love of Jesus peace be upon him and treating him how he should be treated and not exxagerating his status by celebrating his day of birth. Make it clear that this is not why they celelbrate it, otherwise one would assume we also celebrate Noah, Moses Solomon etc. birthdays as well.Mecca Cola 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mithras = Sol Invictus?

I added a cite needed tag here. Can we find a ref that states that the Romans (or whoever) regarded Sol Invictus and Mithras to be the same deity? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of info all over the internet, and a few books linking the two. But lots of them are POV sources. Here is the Discovery Channel's input: ""Mithra was known as Mithras in Rome, where, in the 3rd Century, the Emperor Aurelian declared that the birth of Sol Invictus, the Invincible Sun, would be celebrated on Mithras' birthday, December 25th.

http://www.exn.ca/mindbender/default.asp?id=37

MightyAtom 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a cite for the merging of the 2 dates, but does not actually say they were considered 2 names for the same god, which is what our article says. So, can we find a cite that does support the article? Or do we modify the article to match what we CAN verify? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting technical point. I would support a minor rewrite clarifying that the dates were merged (per the cite), and avoid suggesting that they were actually the same, unless/until there is a further cite. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Radio stations

Why do radio stations play X-mas music 1 month before needed? They drive me nuts! -71.224.19.29 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well don't fucking listen to it then David Cat 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)