Talk:Christmas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

No mention of the actual origin of the date of Christmas?

Saturnalia was on December 17th it could have been December 31st, and although it extended to the 24th, by the Christian era it ended by the 22nd, at the latest; Natus Sol invictus was established after Christmas. These have as much to do with Christmas as Labor Day has to do with Rosh Hashanah. The real holiday that Christmas is based on is Jewish:

The 25th day of Kislev is the Feast of the Dedication. Kislev corresponds roughly to December (the Feast of the Dedication is the eighth day of Hannukah). It's the day that the ancient Jews (or at least those of the faction to which Jesus belonged) believed that the Spirit of God returned to dwell among God once more, in his holy temple. Jesus equated himself with the holy temple, so it was quite natural for early Christians to supplant the Feast of the Dedication with the nativity of Jesus.

But there's also this: It was believed by ancient Christians (and many Jews) that prophets died on the day that they were conceived. Jesus died on March 25th. Since the date of the commemoration of his death, Good Friday, changes from year to year according to Latin interpretations of the Hebrew lunar calendar, the date can take on its secondary significance: the date of Jesus' conception. (Incidentally, this is the Feast of the Annunciation, not the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which is the date Mary was conceived.) Exactly nine months from March 25th is December 25th.

Thus, there are two reasons for early Christians to suppose that Christ was born on December 25th, both of which are quite independent of any pagan festivals.

Geol

OK, so footnote 3 is a reference to an article by Dennis Bratcher on a Christian youth website. The trouble is that I could not find where that article says or supports the statement about Geol/Yule made in this entry. The statement is, I hurry to add, quite correct and rather copiously documented and pretty much universally accepted among researchers (so much so that one wonders if it really requires reference). A better reference might be the Online Etymology Dictionary entry found here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yule.

On a side note, I find rather amusing the lack of complaint about reference to Christian resource and inspirational sites in this article, given the voriferous debate that previously went on about whether the History Channel website could be considered a valid reference for Christmas subjects. TheCormac (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written and easily read the whole way through, no grammar or punctuation issues. b (MoS): Generally good, though I'd question including the etymology of the word "Christmas" in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Most information is referenced... there were a few possibly controversial statements that were not given inline citations (eg, "Misrule") b (citations to reliable sources): Good, though dead links need fixing. c (OR): None. The parts moved to Christmas/temp add lots to the article, though they are unsourced and possibly OR. It should, however, be a simple matter of google searching for sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects well. - There is still a recurring theme of editors believing the secular nature of Christmas has not been covered in enough detail. This is a major omission. b (focused): A few issues were not dealt with as in-depth as I would have expected (eg Santa Claus). While the main Santa page deals with this well, I found the information on this page rather sparse. For example, when describing the "image" of Santa Claus, it only states that by so-and-so date the image had evolved into the one we know today. What one? I presume this means fat guy with beard in red and white furry suit, but it's not stated. I'd also question why the "Green Chri$tma$" sentence is needed. I'm sure there have been many commentaries on the commercialisation of Christmas. Why is this one special? Removing poorly sourced yet relevant and probably accurate material just because its easier than tracking down sources is not a satisfactory result.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Some editors have expressed concern that the article is too focused on Christmas as a religious feast day, and skims over secular observance of the festival. I tend to agree with this - for better or worse, "Christmas" is celebrated in many ways and the secular "commercialised" way is quite widespread. Whilst the "Christmas Controversy" is mentioned breifly, it doesnt seem to be giving any weight to the secular celebration of Christmas. This is, I believe, the article's main weakness.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Fairly high traffic page, but most are either vandalism or relatively minor edits. No problem. Since the GA nomination, regular changes have been made which have not resulted in a clear consensus version.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All fine. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No problem, though I would have expected a picture of a fat guy in a furry red and white suit!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: It's mostly a good article, but the possible POV issue with the secular observance as well as the occasionally insufficient information makes me think this is a narrow fail. It is, however, pretty close, so I will ask for a second opinion before making a final grade. Yeti Hunter 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been on hold for some time now and the issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. As such, the result is a fail. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article 2nd Opinion

I would agree that there are large issues to be addressed here, but providing a hold is appropriate to at least give the editors the opportunity to fix them before failing (this article doesn't meet any of the hard and fast quick-fail criteria in my view). Other issues include:

• Commenting on the above idea about the lead. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview of the entire article, and it is customarily required that the etymology be included therein.
• There is major inline citation work to be done, sections which are lacking - in part or entirely - in inline citations are: Regional customs and celebrations (esp. Social aspects and entertainment), and Arts and media. If these sections do not get inline cites, the article cannot be passed.
• I agree that the article focuses too much on Christmas as a religious holiday. It is pretty uncontroversial to point out that it is primarily a secular holiday rooted in religious traditions in many - if not most - developed countries. The article does feel imbalanced when reading it. It's indicative that the most-used sources are the Catholic Encyclopedia and a source on medieval Christmas. Of course, there's nothing you can do about that when speaking on the history of the holiday up until about the 20th century.

There's my two cents, please feel free to contact me for further advice. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GA hold editing. The unsourced and undisciplined sections have been removed. The lead has been re-written. The 'See also' cleaned up. There is balance now between the sub-sections now and a balance between the religious and secular. The Santa Claus section is in balance with the other sections. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious Still Dominates Secular

In my view, Christmas in the religious sense still dominates this article's content. Given the overwhelming (and increasing) influence of the secular holiday of Christmas to many modern Western societies, this seems inappropriate. I would argue that the article is far more religiously flavored than it has been in the past due in large measure to the dubious banishment to "Winter Festivals" of pre-Christian content. A review of the history tab suggests that attemtpts of people to enhance the non-liturgical and non-Christian parts of this article have been repeatedly excised through the years by those seeking to rewrite history to conform with their faith.

Given that the standard academic research on the topic (such as Nissenbaum, Schmidt, Connoly, and even Restad) make clear that modern secular Christmas is only tenuously connected to the Christian faith, it seems to me the reasonable response is to do what U.S. law essentially does and create two seperate articles - "Christmas (religious)" and "Christmas (secular)"

Such a solution would also allow for greater cultural variability. In my view the article now is pretty exclusively focused on Anglo-Saxon traditions and celebrations. TheCormac (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That would do nothing more than create two ultra-biased POV forks. We need to create one Christmas article that covers all relevant views without giving undue weight to anything. Discussion and consensus-building will work things out. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think you miss my point. It is simply reality to say that the word Christmas, like many words in English, has multiple meanings. It is a religious feast day for Christians, it is a civil holiday in several secular states (France, U.S., for instance), it is a non-demonational winter festival which amalgamates non-religious traditions and rituals, ancient and recent, from numerous cultures. Among the things amalgamated and borrowed for this last mentioned meaning has been the word "Christmas," about as emptied of religious content as "Satuday" or Thursday." The POV argument is really a false one. There are different Christmases sharing the same name and (usually, but not always) date, but with seperate, if sometimes interacting, histories. If you don't want to seperate them as entries (which is the usual Wiki practice in case such as this) we should at least begin the entry with a clearer delineation of the different meanings of the word. TheCormac (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the "fat red idol" is a Christian idea. Santa Claus, or St. Nicholas, is a Catholic saint. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea that Xmas is should not be treated as Christian in an encyclopedia is absurd. People don't need Wikipedia to tell them what Xmas is in their current society, but what its place in world history is. And frankly the Christian significance is far more important now and across the centuries than any ancient pagan affiliation that may have attached itself at one time and in one country. Let's face it: the connections between Roman festivals of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus, Germanic festivals of Yule, and modern or medieval Christmas is pretty speculative and pretty tenuous. A spider web of pedantry and conjecture.(After all, there's only 365 days in the year, and it would have been hard for the early Church to choose a date that did not coincide with any pagan festival anywhere in Europe or West Asia.) The ancient pagan festivals are somewhat over-represented in this article. Let's admit rationally they have nothing to do with the present-day commercialisation of Christmas. It may be common but it is illogical to dismiss Christian traditions as superstition but give credence to the most fanciful non-Christian or irreligious beliefs and theories. Every argument should have an evidentiary basis and I think a lot here are lacking.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion should dominate Secular

This holiday was created by Christianity, and it is supposed to celebrate the Birth of Christ. Not some fat idol in a red coat. This article should have pictures and symbols of Christianity everywhere, for it is a Christian holiday. The majority of this article should be about the religous and Christian meaning. Then, a small section for the secular part. CHRISTmass is about CHRIST, nothing else. All other celebrations and traditions of Christmas should be written all the way at the bottom of the page of the article, because it is unimportant and has no reference to Christ's Mass.

The picture at the beginning of the page should contain more themes of Christianity such as a REAL nativity scene (detailed painting) or a Baby Jesus. If the Jews get to have their own holiday, then so should us Christians. It is not right for Christmas to be dominated by secularism because that is not its real meaning.

I would propose create two article about Christmas, Secular Christmas, and Christmas.

Thank you all for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Director958 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See now, this is what I've been talking about. Here is a clearly devout Christian who wants a proper entry on a significant event in his religion's calendar. And why not? There can be little doubt, however, that there are legions of people (and I won't bother with the pointless squabbling over which side has more) who have the opposite view and think the article should be all about cultural Chirsimas, with only a small appendage on the religious feast day of the same name. Neither is right or wrong, they are just talking about two distinct things which happen, by historical accident if you will, to share the same name. Two entries is a good solution. Failing that, an entry that carefully defines the seperate meanings would be a real improvement. TheCormac (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas does not have Christian origins. It is a pagan holiday that was adopted by Christianity. Enigmaman (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Christmas doesn't relate to the birthday of Christ since the 25th December is not the correct date anyway for that event, but was chosen by the early church to usurp and replace a pagan event. Even the early church acknowledged at the time that this date was at least out of whack with any possible real birth date by at least one season, maybe two, when considered within the context of when the Roman census were held. There's numerous references. In theological terms Christmas is relatively unimportant compared to Easter according to the Archbishop of Canterbury said.Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems many of us agree about this, but a few religious zealots are making the article have a biased slant. Enigmaman (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The obsession seems to be with the date, not the content of the festival. The proof of your contention is doubtful, but it is also irrelevant. Centuries have passed, and the worship of Thor and Mithras has been forgotten. We have an article here about Christmas, not about them. Please explain your position logically and with relevant historical evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Big uncited section

Even with these cuts big OR-ish trivia-type sections still lurk at the bottom of the article. Cut, move to talk, or cite ASAP.

Moved here: Talk:Christmas/temp

Please cite and return to the article. --SECisek 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed another big section that is completely unsourced and undisciplined. I've placed all the pruned sections in a temporary archive here. Talk:Christmas/temp Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wherefore art thou, Natalis Solis Invicti?

I haven't edited this article for awhile, although I did quite a bit on it last year. It seems to have undergone some major changes, mainly the removal of all the Pre-Christian Winter Festivals and other valuable information. I checked the talk pages, but I can't find where these changes were discussed. What happened? MightyAtom (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone must have removed it, possibly because of concerns that the article was getting too long. Personally I think the old version with reams of info on previous festivals would be better suited in the separate List of winter festivals article, with a link to there on this page, which is provided. The previous detailed list's length was ridiculous in proportion to the rest of the article, and while some more info could be added to "Pre-Christian winter festivals" it should only be another sentence or two linking to the main inspirations, e.g. Natalis.

Whether it's "valuable" info or not is really a personal judgement. I agree that it's interesting, but it's only tangentially relevant to this article. But a good idea would be to add relevant info in the "traditions" section, showing how current customs were inspired by the past. Brisvegas 09:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Following the good article review noted above, there was a flurry of edits (see the article history) making some quite dramatic changes to the article with no real discussion here. I noticed it too and was waiting for the pace to slow down a bit. I think the article as it was definitely needed some trimming, but I am not sure that everything that was cut should have been. - Eron^Talk 13:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. The trimming was done to unsourced text mostly. There was a problem with overall balance to the article but the text that was edited out was unsourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This bold edit, which removd the bulk of the content about pre-Christian festivals, deleted text which was in fact sourced. We can discuss if it was needed in the article or not, but it was fully referenced. - Eron^Talk 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary stated: "intro paragraph enough - all off topic as none of these revelers would have ever heard the word "Christmas".

I agree with Brisvegas, link to it, don't include it. It has nothing to do with "Christmas". What the article needs is more info on secular celebrations, not pagan events from 2,000+ years ago. -- SECisek (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the linkage between Saturnalia and Christmas is dubious and was developed by Puritans in England between 1630 to 1660 during the English Civil War. For political, religious and economic reasons, the Commonwealth government outlawed 'feasts' including Christmas. Arguements against Christmas were developed most strongly at this time in sermons and various Puritan / Commonwealth tracts. One of the favourite arguments was to link the Christmas feast with Saturnalia and thus imply that Christmas was not Christian but thoroughly pagan. This argument has appeared through the years in popular accounts of the history of Christmas. The connection is circumstantial and not causal. Saturnalia did occur around the time of Christmas but I don't believe any historic writer discusses the choosing of Dec 25 because the date is convenient in relation to Saturnalia: it is happenstance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, what's the relevance? The holiday was founded after Christmas.

...But about Yule?

The problem I have with this is that Yule (per Germanic paganism) actually has quite a lot to do with our modern conventions regarding Christmas, whereas Saturnalia doesn't. Most "traditional" aspects outside of the nativity scene are directly derived from the indigenous Germanic peoples - Santa Clause[1] leading the Wild Hunt, modern festivities regarding the Alpine Perchten[2], the ham[3], the tree[4] and numerous other cultural aspects left behind in various Germanic societies - such as England and subsequently the US. There are many parallels here and a lot of research has been done in this area. I think it would be wise to mention this in particular for the sake of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why it should be in the "traditions" section, so readers have a context. E.g. Several Christmas customs and traditions are derived from earlier pagan rituals. Among these are... (mention Yule log, ham, tree, etc.) Brisvegas 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the pre-Christian section may well have needed trimming; I am a bit concerned that with its complete excision some valuable content may have been lost. These traditions have influenced Christmas activities and possibly the date as well. The information provided above by Wassupwestcoast about Saturnalia and the Puritans is something that could enhance this article. How many people come here thinking that the two festivals are directly related? Why doesn't this article explain that they aren't? - Eron^Talk 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that pagan borrowings should be in the traditions section and not in the 'pre-Christian' section. The problem here is the concept of anachronism. In historical narrative, you shouldn't write as if events anticipate the future;especially using ideas from the future. People who celebrated Yule and Saturnalia did not do so in anticipation of Christians and Christmas. Rather, hundreds of years later, people who were Christians borrowed from the past because certain practices of the past had become familiar and comforting; ie. 'traditions'. I doubt any Christian borrowed Saturnalia practices except perhaps deliberately by university scholars when the study of Classics were at their zenith. But Yule, there is no doubt many traditions passed through the centuries. The other question about Saturnalia / Christmas should be developed in a section on the banning of Christmas which had a profound influence on the celebration in England and America. In England, roughly speaking Christmas festivities stopped in about 1650 and were not revived until about 1850. And, the article is correct in crediting Dickens for this. Prince Albert - Queen Victoria's consort- was likely the conduit of many germanic Yule customs back into England in the 1800s, like the Christmas tree. So, yea, a lot of stuff could be added to the Christmas article. The problem is simple: I have to go to the library and check 'Christmas' references when the Real World says that I best spend my library time checking other references. Hopefully, other contributing editors can fill in the holes in the article with sound research. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading the history section again, it is reasonably well balanced. In just a few sentences, it covers the necessary ground without unnecessary detail: see Wikipedia:The perfect article.

is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects.

The Saturnalia / Christmas and the Outlawing of Christmas topics could all be developed elsewhere. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that all that the pre-christian origins section is almost entirely speculative and in part contradicted by the content below it. There is no historical evidence for this supposed enticement. There is no historical evidence that Mithras or Ishtar had birthday celebrations at all, never mind on 25th Decemeber. There is no historical evidence for syncretism. Scrub the lot, in my opinion. PS The History Channel is not much of a source - now if someone could come up with the original historical source for this guff... --Dmottram (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the above info is mistaken. The 'birthday' of the Sol Invictus imported into Rome in the 3rd cent. AD was celebrated on December 25. Many Romans at the time associated the Sol Invictus with Mithras, another popular solar deity worshipped in an imperial cult imported from the East three centuries earlier (and before Christianity as well). Thus Mithras' birthday was celebrated on December 25. In the 4th cent. Constantine established December 25 as a Christian holiday to replace the old pagan holiday associated w/ Sol Invictus, and thus it became the 'birthday' of Jesus as it had been the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus/Mithras before. Thus, the History Channel is irrelevant in this discussion. It is a matter of studying imperial cults that precede the rise of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.100.152 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all rather odd. Why not verify these statements first, rather than relying on some daft website or other? The Sol Invictus cult was not 'imported' (see S. Hijmans, "The sun that did not rise in the East") but an original Roman cult, established by Aurelian in 274 AD. There is a 'natalis invicti' recorded in 354 on Dec. 25 (edited Momsen, CIL I and uploaded by me), but this is the anniversary of the founding of the temple of Sol Invictus not a 'birthday'(! as we can see from the other 'natalis' festivals in the calendar) There is no evidence of association between Sol Invictus and Mithras (see the collection of data by G. Halsberghe), and if there was how would this by itself demonstrate that Mithras had a 'birthday' on that date?

The story about Constantine is wrong; Christmas was not celebrated on 25 Dec in his reign (see Catholic Encyclopedia for data of when and where), but in the succeeding reign of Constantius II (see the philocalian calendar). Christmas was the birthday of Jesus, not the anniversary of the consecration of his temple.

I have deleted the section about Constantine, all of which is thus irrelevant to any discussion of Christmas. The idea that Constantine determined Christmas comes from the fact that the council of Nicaea harmonised *Easter*, paranoid suggestions that Constantine determined everything the council ordered, and some kind of imaginary supposition that therefore he 'must' have done the same for Christmas. :Roger Pearse: 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pearse, you're a trip. I cite the article on alt.atheism and you run right over here to start deleting things you don't like. That's too funny. Mark K. Bilbo (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia dead?

I mean, come on—it's less than a month from Christmas yet no one is here discussing anything, and there isn't even much vandalism. Talk about different from last year... and the year before. Is the fad over?Steven Evens (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the same suspicions. Apparently, Wikipedia is more consulted than ever but the rate of constructive contributions seems to have hit a low. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this article protected last year like it is now? Looks like this article has been protected twice this month for vandalism. Wrad (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. It just struck me how funny it is that we're measuring wikihealth by vandalism levels. Wrad (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about vandalism levels, I'm talking about discussion. Of course there are always going to be idiots vandalising the Christmas pageSteven Evens (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas tv specials aqnd list of Xmas films

Who moved the list of Christmas films and TV specials? User:DanDud88 10:45, 30 November 2006 GMT.

Sextus Julius Africanus

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

Pagan origins

There's a couple of things concerning it's pagan origins that this article needs to discuss: 1. Very little in this article discusses Christmas's origins before Christianity. This was a "Christianized" holiday like Easter and Halloween, yet the article only seems to briefly mention this. 2. Being a Christian holiday, there is nothing in the article discussing Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups which oppose celebrating the holiday due to its pagan ties.

I think both of these need to be brought up in the article. I would be happy to do so, but I don't know really where to put them. Squad51 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was gutted by Christian POV pushers for about the millionth time, and I have restored it yet again. The material I put back is factual, well-sourced, and extremely germaine to the history of the holiday. A plea to Christian editors - Please stop deleting facts that disagree with your personal beliefs; you're making a lot more work for those who maintain the standards of accuracy and completeness which are necessary to an encyclopedia. Doc Tropics 21:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right and this article makes no sense without the origins of the holiday. It's sourced and it needs to stay. While Saturnalia may not have much to do with it, Yule is certainly the most blatantly obvious influence on modern Christmas. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that some editors do not fully realize that the Saturnalia / Christmas argument is effectively Christian propaganda of the 17th Century. Far from being Christian POV to eliminate the text, it is historically accurate not to make the non-causal linkage. The linkage between Saturnalia and Christmas is dubious and was developed by Puritans in England between 1630 to 1660 during the English Civil War. For political, religious and economic reasons, the Commonwealth government outlawed 'feasts' including Christmas. Arguements against Christmas were developed most strongly at this time in sermons and various Puritan / Commonwealth tracts. One of the favourite arguments was to link the Christmas feast with Saturnalia and thus imply that Christmas was not Christian but thoroughly pagan. This argument has appeared through the years in popular accounts of the history of Christmas. The connection is circumstantial and not causal. Saturnalia did occur around the time of Christmas but I don't believe any historic writer discusses the choosing of Dec 25 because the date is convenient in relation to Saturnalia: it is happenstance. In short, I'm not pushing a Christian POV but eliminating a form of Christian propaganda that pitted one type of Christian against another. On the other hand, Christians did borrow heavily from Yule customs but it was a backwards borrowing. Yule did not evolve into Christmas. A lot of the borrowing was of the antiquarian / romantic 'looking back' of the 18th and 19th C, the same fad, for example, that gave rise to the Pre-Raphaelites or that of Goethe and Wagner. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all really great points, and if they can be referenced then they should be included in the article! However, when you use statements like "I believe...." and "One of the favorite arguments...." then it comes off as personal opinion more than facts. Even if the connection is incorrect, than that should be included in the article. So long as everything is referenced. Cheers!MightyAtom (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right MightyAtom. Adding further well-sourced information for the sake of completeness and clarity would be perfect. Anything that adds useful content to the article would be great. Doc Tropics 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Frank Tillman~~ Iwould like to enter the following link to the Christmas Article

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=4138 I think this article is very interesting would this be possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frtillman (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the protocol for adding information to an article, or for discussing it, but I think it's important to note the following: I believe that the point about the date for Christmas being chosen independent of Saturnalia is quite true, as these two articles can act as support: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535969/posts http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v furthermore, those two articles even go as far as to suggest that Saturnalia's date was set because of Christmas! An attempt by pagans to deChristianize the holiday as it were. However, I also think it's important to note that this is in fact a debate, not a clear right and wrong. This article touches on both sides of the issue: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/23/special_reports/religion/21_50_1412_22_04.txt :lekkin: (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Arguably it's racist to say Easter has a pagan origin. Yes, the name and perhaps the bunny and the eggs do, but the festival itself is not Germanic - because Christianity isn't. It explicitly derives from the Jewish Passover. And I frankly find it hard to see how a festival of unleaven bread is connected with the celebration of fertility normally associated with the vernal equinox. The bland assumption that anything to do with Christianity has to be discussed and explained in terms of Western European history is at best stupid and at worst disgusting.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Top Summary

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

Christmas as a secular holiday / celebration of the nativity sections

The sections "Christmas as a secular holiday" and "Christmas as a celebration of the nativity" need to be looked at. These sections make it seem as though Christmas is two separate holidays, whereby certain people would celebrate (A) and others (B). This is incorrect, as many people celebrate both the secular and less secular aspects of the holiday simultaneously. For instance, the birth of Jesus, though with its strong religious ties, is not necessarily a solely religious observation as historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth lived, thus he was at one point born, regardless of the circumstances of such. Many at Christmas, including myself, celebrate Jesus as a historical, notable character who deserves to be celebrated for his life accomplishments and legacy. This needs to be revised to some degree, and I will try to help with it. Steven Evens (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with you here - albeit only in part. I agree that the options are actually either or both (or neither, come to that) and not 'choose one religious or secular.' But your suggestion that they are too split here is totally off base in my view. I think they are not delineated enough in this article. The problem is that there are secular traditional mid-winter festivals, full of customs and observances which have little or nothing (depending on what, specifically, we are talking about) to do with the Christian Nativity (Indeed, as people seem to never tire of pointing out, some of them even antedate that event.) but which have also come to be called Christmas in countries with long standing Christian majorities (and even a few now without). Your suggestion that there are "many" such as yourself in the world who use Christmas to celebrate the historical Jesus of Nazareth separate from the Christian faith is fascinating to me, but I'm afraid I'm deeply skeptical. Perhaps you can find some social science or public opinion research that suggests there to be a significant number of likeminded people in the world? I, for one, would appreciate learning about such an unexplored dimension of Christmas! TheCormac (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun / Son

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

Unsigned comment

this article need to be scrapped and completely rewritten by a professional.

This article is as thorough a condemnation of Wikipedia as I have ever seen. Truely bloody awful piece of half-baked opinion and citations from magazine articles for Gods sake.

This article is almost complete bollocks from start to finish the citations are other misinformed repetitoons of commonly occuring myths about Christmas origins and the later history is still inaccurate. Dickens did not reinvent Christmas, for example. It had become unpopular having been censored entirely by the Commonwealth but was revived largely by Victoria and Albert as part and parcel of creating the Royal family mythos and by extension its worth as a family-orientated event.

It also has the worst aspects of Wikipedia in its core. False history, biases glaring, ignorance trumpeted as fact, thinly disguised tosh. God help us.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.2.2 (talk • contribs)

I also think this article suffers a lot from a lack of academic sources. Most all of its sources are news/web sources. Those are not really known for being very accurate. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible. Way too religion heavy and misrepresents the holiday. 24.5.188.169 (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article badly needs to be redone by an unbiased party. This was hijacked by Christians desperate to claim Christmas as their holiday. Enigmaman (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)