Talk:Christmas

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Christmas is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christmas article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Former featured article Christmas is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Christianity
Christianity portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Holiday-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of objectives or join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An event in this article is a December 25 selected anniversary and a January 7 selected anniversary This is a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christmas, as class B and of top importance.

Archive
Archives
To-do:  · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    (Items suggested by peer reviewers)

    • Edit to eliminate redundancies that make the article too wordy
    • Edit to reduce vague terms of size - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”
    • Thorough copyediting
    • Eliminate unnecessary wikilinks (e.g. "birth", "volunteer", etc.) - mostly done, definitely should be double checked though
    • Incorporate a "Controversy" section with a "Main article:" link.

    (Other items)

    • Add references to Arts and media section
    • Add references to Regional customs and celebration section
    Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Christmas as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Croatian, Indonesian or Kannada language Wikipedias.

    Contents

    Not all Eastern Churches celebrate Christmas on January 7th

    The text on the page (near the beginning) says: "The Eastern Orthodox church celebrates Christmas on January 7 which is December 25 in the Julian Calendar. The Greek Orthodox church does not recognize the Gregorian Calendar which was implemented by a Catholic Pope. Around the world, Christmas Day is celebrated on December 25. Christmas Eve is the preceding day, December 24."

    However, should one go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Calendar and scroll down, one gets: "...the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963), and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do, 25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian (which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100)."

    From what I know, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the second claim is correct: different Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on different days.

    Someone please amend that on the front page of article "Christmas".

    Thank you and happy holidays (if you're celebrating, if not all the best as well!)

    that was corrected recently but a user has been editing it to the previous incorrect version today. I'll see what I can do. Enigmaman (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    You are missing the point - every-one celebrates Christmas on the same day - Dec 25. Only some churches use the OLD calendar (Julian) which maps to Jan 7. Please check your facts - you leave the impression that they have set Christmas on different days - the just use a different calendar. Bobanni (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, everyone celebrates Christmas on Dec 25, but, as my experience says, most of the people who celebrate it using the old Julian calendar DO NOT KNOW or do not care about it at all and really think that Christmas is on Jan 7. And even more (as I heard from Russian Orthodox authorities on TV) this is the main reason why Russian church do not change the calendar - it would be extremely hard to explain the change to old and uneducated believers.Illarionov (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    The last revision was poorly written and is of questionable accuracy, but I'll let Bobanni deal with it since he's so insistent. Enigmaman (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    @Bobanni: I am not missing the point. With respect to a particular calendar, different Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on different days. The information I saw (which I quoted first)is incorrect in many ways: First, "the eastern orthodox church" consists of members that are quite independent and that make their own decisions. Second, Greek church does use Gregorian calendar. Third, what does "around the world" mean - everywhere? almost everywhere?

    I simply think one should be more specific, especially in cases where it's really not hard to be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.52.35 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Cultural status in post-soviet states

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

    I should say more about this shift. The Christmas Tree is now New Year's Tree. Christmas presents are New Year's presents. Ded Moroz (Santa Claus analog) is New Year's mascot. Even English Christmas songs like Jingle Bells are New Year's songs here in Russia. All Economics of Christmas are present here but they are New Year's economics. Illarionov (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    References: http://russian-crafts.com/customs/christmas.html http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=20456&cid=187&p=19.12.2007 http://www.cityvision2000.com/millenium/feature.htm http://wscsd.org/ejournal/spip.php?article176 Illarionov (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Rubbish section removed

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

    Revamp of intro. paragraphs

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

    Redo of 1st Paragraph

    I have returned the reference to Christmas as also being a season (aka Christmas Season / Christmastide) as it is known to millions of Christians worldwide…the singular word alone references this season. To define it as a singular ‘holiday’ only would be incorrect. Also, I have removed the unnecessary “spiritual leader” as that misrepresents what he was to millions who share the Christian faith. The information that follows and the link to 'Jesus of Nazareth' aptly identify who the subject is without shading the tone with opinion.--Operaguy (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the additions. I've just tweaked them a little bit to read easier. I've linked Christmastide in the very beginning sentence, and simply have linked the term "season" in "liturgical season". If you like, we can switch these linkings around to have it be [[Christmastide|liturgical season]] and just leave Christmastide bolded with no link. I just find the paragraph flows easier with mentioning Christmastide in the intro. Thanks.—Steven Evens (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing you changed was horrendous, but this entire process is a reason I think Wikipedia is doomed to eventual failure. When people enter scholarly information, it's almost always dismissed for rhetoric laden with inaccuracies with which to relate personal biases. I'm done editing Wikipedia - it's too frustrating to work on something and have it dashed by people with agendas. I'm an atheist, but I quit reading the article on the first sentence when it clearly defines Christmas as a singular 'holiday' listing two possible dates. Mentioning Christmastide as an aside is not sufficient. To the majority of people celebrating Christmas (billions of Christians world-wide) it is a season / a liturgical season / 12 days / 4-6 weeks, but never 1 day. --Operaguy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    US Federal Holidays Template

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

    Billions of children

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

    Fixed. Enigmaman (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Merge Crimbo into alternative names section

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

    Yeah I agree --60.231.17.231 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    External links

    I would like to add the following to the External links section:

    Does anyone have an objection? MishaPan (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    The Truth About Christmas

    I am going to be hated forever but the truth must be told. Christmas is a pagan holiday that has nothing to do with Christ. Santa Clause was a false god who went by a differnt name and children were sacrificed to this god, sacrificed to Santa. The followers of the Nicolatians mentioned in Revelation are people who believe in Santa. Christmas was a day that Jewish people were tortured and killed. The CHRIST in Christmas was slapped on there by a Roman Empereor named Nero (I believe) so that the Pagans and Christians could get along. If you don't believe me research it for yourself. I'll be back to explain more later. The K.O. King (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    WP:NPOV, specifically Undue weight. Briefly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. adriatikus | talk 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    I will get the information I need and a source. The K.O. King (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    One of the most important things to remember when doing research is to check your sources for authenticity. So much of what you said is half-truth, or misinterpreted facts that one wonders how good a researcher you are. Lets deal with your points one by one, shall we?
    Christmas, or rather, the feast of the Nativity of Christ has very little to do with the actual date of Christ’s birth. The date for celebrating the Feast was established by the Christian church sometime in the 4th century AD. The Christian calendar was designed so that the various major events in Christ’s life could be celebrated in chronological order (with the exception of Pascha (Easter) which follows a different system of calculation). This calendar was approved by a council of bishops who were called to order by the Emperor Constantine the Great. The dates for celebrating these various Feasts were not chosen at random, but because Christianity sought to supplant to older pagan customs, the Church chose days that corresponded to popular pagan holidays with the hope that eventually the people would forget the pagan customs and adopt Christian customs. Similarly it was often the case where old pagan temples were converted to Christian churches.
    One of the prominent bishops of this first great council of the Christian church was Nicholas of Myra, in Lycia. Nicholas was famous for his acts of selfless charity, for feeding the hungry and rescuing those in financial distress. It is he who secretly left gifts to the poor. After his death he was declared a Saint by the church. His feastday falls on December 6th and it was on this day, not Christmas that early Christians exchanged gifts in honor of the saint. The saint became well known in many countries. And so, in German, Nicholas translates as Claus, Santa being Saint.
    By modern times, in the western world especially, many quaint folk traditions have gotten wrapped around the story. Most of our modern traditions only date back a century or so. Somewhere along the line the two feasts were mixed up, but in truth, there was a Saint Nicholas, he was a Christian hero, and no one ever sacrificed children to him. Christmas was never a pagan holiday but rather it supplanted the pagan feast of Sol Invictus. Please, read a few actual historical texts, not just the tracks you find under your windshield wiper.

    --Phiddipus (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Christmas was only a minor holiday in ancient times, not an effort to try to take over someone else's festival. The Romans considered Dec. 25 to be the date of the winter solstice. Jesus was the "sun of righteousness" (from Malachi 4) and therefore identified with solar days. In the East, the nativity was celebrated on Epiphany (Jan. 6), which was solstice according to the Egyptian calendar. Christmas did not become a major festival until the High Middle Ages (perhaps influenced by Yule). Kauffner (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Etymology

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

    Xmas

    It should be mentioned also that X-mas = Christ-mas, it is actually not derived from a practice of keeping 'Christ' out of the holiday. Greek anyone? 140.233.216.47 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    That issue is brought up in the restored Etymology section. MightyAtom (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    Presendential Proclaimations for Christmas

    Thought this link could be a valuable addition to the nature of Wiki's content. It contains the proclaimations made by different presidents of USA, for the occasion of Christmas:

    http://theholidayspot.com/christmas/proclamations.htm

    Waiting for your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.204.137 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    I see a problem in History section

    "December 25 was considered the day upon which the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma, fell. (When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, December 25 was approximately the date of the solstice. In modern times, the solstice falls on December 21 or 22.)"

    This is not correct. It has been 2053 years since the introduction of Julian Calender. At the rate of a year in 25,765 years, the festival which the Romans must have been celebrating in Caesar's time must have slid 29 days ahead rather than just 3 or 4 days as mentioned in the above quote. So it must not have been winter solstice (Bruma), but some other festival, which now should fall on November 25 or 26. So what was that festival? I see two possibilities, movement of sun into Ophiuchus or Saggitarius (but not sure). Aupmanyav (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Add: Saggitarius is ruled by Jupiter. Saggitarius is also the Archer (Orion). I am presenting various options so that some scholar will clear the problem. At one time, the Aryan year began with appearance of sun on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Orion. Was it a wrongly placed vernal equinox that the Romans were celebrating? Aupmanyav (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    The Julian calendar was revised by both by Emperor Augustus and much later by Pope Gregory. Even the Julian/Augustus calendar slipped by only one day in 400 years, so your numbers don't make any sense to me. Kauffner (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, I get it now. You are confused with the precession of equinoxes, but that has nothing to do with calendar slippage or the date of the solstice. Kauffner (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    I am not talking about slipping of days. I am talking ot slipping of zodiac. Some of the Roman festivals (Bruma) must have been held according to the zodiac. If today Christmas is held in the zodiac of Saggitarius, in early christian days in Europe, it must have been held in the zodiac of Scorpius, since zodiac slips by one sign in 2000 years. Aupmanyav (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    Bruma was a celebration of the solstice held on Dec. 25. It was held according to the Roman/Julian calendar, not the zodiac. Dec. 25 was never exactly the right date astronomically because the calendar is a human creation subject to miscalculation and politicial manipulation. The precession of the solstices through the star signs is a natural phenomenon independent of what calendar one uses. Kauffner (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks Kauffner, for taking interest in this discussion. If Caesar and the Romans were celebrating some festival (Bruma) on Dec. 25, 2000 years ago, then it was not winter solstice. Because at that time the winter solstice must have fallen on Jan. 26 by his calender (precession of equinoxes being independent of the calender that we follow). It must have been entry of sun in the zodiac of Scorpion.
    Kindly check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_festivals. It was celebrated as "Dies Natalis Invicti Solis (Festival of the invincible sun God, Sol Invictus)". It was the beginning of the 30 day festival of winter solstice which fell on January 24 to January 26 – Sementivae (in Sanskrit - Samvatsara, beginning of Uttarayana and the six-month day of Gods, the beginning of the north-ward journey of sun. Bruma (Brumalia, in honor of Dionysus of the Greeks and Bacchus of the Romans) was the shortest day of the year and should not change from Dec. 21/22. The Roman festival page shows it on Nov. 24, which also IMHO must be wrong. So, the entry in the history section should be revised as follows:

    "December 25 was celebrated as 'Dies Natalis Invicti Solis (Festival of the invincible sun God, Sol Invictus)'. It was the beginning of the 30 day festival of winter solstice which, in Caesar's time, fell on January 24 to January 26 and was called Sementivae (in the country called Paganalia)."

    I suppose this corrects the wrong description. Aupmanyav (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    NO! January 26 is a date on the calendar and is therefore dependant on which calendar is used. Use this site to calculate the date of the solstice for yourself. It occurred on Dec. 21 in -44 by the Gregorian Calendar. Using this site to convert Gregorian to Julian yields Dec. 23 in -45. This is still a few days off because it doesn't take into account the calendar alteration made by Augustus, but I think it illustrates the point.
    As for Brumalia, it began on Nov. 24 and ended on Dec. 25. Sol Invictus didn't exist in Caesar's time. It was an empire-wide national day that was promoted by Aurelian and other emperors. Kauffner (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    hey i was right thanks for making me know im right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.198.86 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    Intro is an absolute disgrace

    Hey, I propose that we change the current messy intro. to one that was once in place and that perfectly introduced Christmas, but got lost somewhere along the line:

    “ Christmas, also referred to as Christmas Day or Christmastide, is an annual holiday usually falling on December 25 or January 7[1] that honors and celebrates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. His birth, which is the basis for the transcultural Western calendar, has been determined by modern historians as having occurred between 8–4 BC, and is traditionally told to have taken place in a stable lwithin the city of Bethlehem. The specific date of celebration for Jesus' birth is traditional, and is generally believed to have been influenced by the dates of pre-Christian festivals—usually the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti[2]—rather than having been based on historical data or reference.

    Modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, church celebrations, and the display of various decorations—including the Christmas tree, lights, mistletoe, nativity scenes and holly. The jolly mythological figure Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) is also a large part of Christmas, whereas he is traditionally believed by millions of children as being a bringer of gifts on or before Christmas Day. Santa is generally believed to be the result of the syncretization of Saint Nicholas with elements from pagan Nordic and Christian mythology, and owes his modern appearance mostly to 19th century media.

    Christmas is celebrated throughout the Christian population, but it is also celebrated by many non-Christians, usually because of its cultural status and its non-sectarian winter-related traditions. The holiday is widely celebrated around the world, including in the United States, where it is celebrated by 96% of the population.[3]

    		 ”

    Questions? comments? Thanks. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    I agree. While I am not thrilled with the above, it it surely better than the mess that is currently there --JimWae (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    Great, thanks for the response. We could edit it, tweak it, as long as it gets put in there to replace the current disaster. Do you have any suggestions? I like how it incorporates other articles, like Christmas worldwide. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 06:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    I say be bold. Go ahead and change it to whatever you think is better. My only concern is that the existing disastrous intro has some good information that should be preserved. So a switch is not just putting a better intro in, but making sure that the stuff in the current intro finds a better home in the article. Tb (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I was going to do that but I had done it in the past and it was eventually reverted. I think I'll take your advice now, as it seems that there's a general concensus. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    The Sol Invictus theory is just one older theory about the origin of the Christmas and it is not in my opinion the most likely explanation. Besides, it doesn't help readers much to tell them that Christmas might have evolved from some other holiday they are not likely to have heard of. The lead should just say that December 25 was winter solstice on the Roman calendar. This is most likely reason both Christmas and Sol Invictus were scheduled on this day.
    The January 7 thing doesn't belong in the lead. Besides, the Orthodox also celebrate on Dec. 25, they just follow a different calendar. Kauffner (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    So, how about simply removing the bolded part? That should do the trick: "... pre-Christian festivals—usually the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti[2]—rather than having been based on historical data or reference". In addition, the "January 7" has already been removed. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    Some of the claims in the introduction seem fuzzy, such as the statement that Christmas is celebrated by 96% of the US population, which doesn't seem to line up well with the fact that a considerably smaller percentage of the US population consider themselves Christian at all. [1] Without making it clear that a large proportion of this so-called observance is completely secular, the claim leaves a false impression. Lee-Anne (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    There is a reliable source for the 96% claim. I'm sure I could find more. You'll note that in the same sentence, it states "Christmas is also celebrated by non-Christians as a cultural festival". This is why we have such a high percentage of celebrants. I don't see why we need to specify that "a large proportion of this observance is secular", as the article already indicates that many do celebrate Christmas entirely secularly, and recent stats show Christianity at about 79% in the US, so only about 17% could be said to be celebrating secularly. Not a particularly significant amount considering. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 05:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Jesus born in winter time?

    Luke 2:8 There were also in that same country shepherds living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks.

    Their flocks would have been kept indoors, it wasn't the right season to be shepherding, it's supposed to be a winter festival.

    --JoshuaMD (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yes... we know. The date of celebration of Jesus' birth is not based in any historical data or reference. It is believed to have been based off the dates of ancient Roman holidays, as is mentioned in this article. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Small alteration?

    Anyone disagree/care to comment about changing the opening from "an annual holiday celebrated on December 25" to "an annual Christian and cultural holiday celebrated on December 25"? I'm thinking it might be better to disambiguate that in the beginning? Thanks all for input. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    Don't you mean, "Christian and secular"? Also, you can take out the word "annual." If the holiday is celebrate on December 25, it is obviously annual. Kauffner (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I don't think we can call it both "Christian" and "secular", these words contradict each other. If it's secular, it's free of religious connotations. Using "cultural" I think embraces the fact that it's celebrated by non-Christians for cultural reasons, not explicitly Christian ones. Put it this way: non-Jews don't celebrate Hanukkah just to get presents, because Hanukkah is not a cross-cultural holiday. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    "Secular Christmas" is a standard phrase, way more common than "cultural Christmas." "Free of religious connotations" is exactly the point, because otherwise the teacher's unions and the ACLU will object to the celebration. The U.S. postal service puts out separate religious and secular Christmas stamps every year. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The existing "an annual holiday celebrated on December 25[1] that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth" seems to do the job fine - and does not involve culture wars --JimWae (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia content modification information:

    • This page was last modified on 30 September 2008, at 16:47.

    Wikipedia Authorship and Review

    Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

    Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

    This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Christmas".

    The URL for this specific entry is:

    All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.