Talk:December 25

Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page

Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

December 25: Christmas (Western Christianity; Gregorian calendar); Hanukkah (Judaism) begins at sunset; Quaid-e-Azam Day in Pakistan Mikhail Gorbachev 1046 – Henry III was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement II. 1724 – Johann Sebastian Bach led the first performance of Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, based on the Christmas hymn written by Martin Luther in 1524. 1831 – A Baptist preacher named Samuel Sharpe began an unsuccessful eleven-day slave revolt in Jamaica. 1991 – In a nationally televised speech, Mikhail Gorbachev (pictured) resigned as President of the Soviet Union. 2009 – A fire destroyed Longford's 19th-century St Mel's Cathedral, considered the "flagship cathedral" of the Irish midlands. Humphrey Bogart (b. 1899) Atal Bihari Vajpayee (b. 1924) Billy Martin (d. 1989) Zail Singh (d. 1994) More anniversaries: December 24 December 25 December 26

Mithra

Mithra was born on December 25th. I demand that this article reflect this irrefutable FACT that I got from a PRE-BRONZE AGE TEXT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.72.41 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Year for birth

The year associated with the traditional birth of Christ should be 1 BC, not 1 AD. For purposes of reckoning the calender, Dionysius Exiguus set the date of Jesus' birth on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita: that is, since the (traditional) founding of Rome), and started the era 8 days later on 1 January 754. The year 754 became 1 AD, and when BC dates began to be used, the year 753 was 1 BC, as there is no year 0. Odd as it may seem when you abbreviate it, the traditional birth of Christ was 25 December 1 BC, not AD! Someone else

Who is Dorothy Worsworth? -- Zoe

I guess it's a typo for "Dorothy Wordsworth", sister of William, and herself a noted diarist. I'll fix it. --Camembert

Was Tony Martin born in 1912 or 1913? His profile says 1913, but this page says 1912.

Vandalized?

Someone vandalized Jesus.... I reverted it to an older state - 30 September 2005

POV and inaccurate information

There is no evidence that Jesus was actually born on December 25. December 25 is the time around the Winter Solstice, and also was the date of the celebration of the birth of Mithras. This is the origin of the Christmas holiday. The article reads "0 - (actual date should be 6 BC) Jesus, great religious teacher, one of the most influential figures of all time". "Great religious teacher" is POV, and "one of the most influential figures of all time" is POV, unless you add something like "considered to be one of the most influential figures in history" but that "of all time" nonsense is pathetic. There is no "year 0", and it would be better put just as "1" not "0". Revolución 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being that there is no proof that Jesus was born on December 25 (and no serious scholar actually believes he was) I had parenthetically added "traditionally" to the date. Rt66lt, August 10, 2005

"Traditional" is fine, but then it's clear we're not celebrating a birthday but a tradition or holiday. As a result, the reference to Jesus belongs entirely under the Holiday section. Placing it under "Births" is a POV that most of the world doesn't agree with and isn't supported historically (only by tradition). Also keep in mind that not even all Christian traditions place Christ's birth on the 25th. Examples: Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic Christians don't celebrate Christ's birthday on the 25th, and Jehova's Witnesses don't celeberate Christ's birthday at all. Rklawton 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Christmas celebration list:

• December 25 - Roman Catholics, most Protestants
• January 6 - Armenians (not in the Holy Land)
• January 7 - Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches
• January 18 - Armenians (in the Holy Land)
• not at all - Jehova's Witnesses
• others?

Rklawton 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The so called "Jehovah's Witnesses" aren't even considered Christian.StThomasMore 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? By whom are they not considered Christian? •Jim62sch• 00:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Winter Solstice should be added to the Dec. 25 celebrations. According to Wikipedia on Winter Solstice it says that in 46 BCE Julius Caeser established the date as the official Winter Solstice. Of course it literally can vary, but I think the history of it should be in the article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

300 days from March 1

Why would anyone care how many days are between March 1 and December 25? This seems like a huge piece of non-information to have sitting at the top of the artice. I'm going to go ahead and delete it - if you wish you replace it please provide some rationale to help me understand why. Musser 04:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Julian calendars use the day count. When I served in the U.S. Army, all our official calendars had the day count printed on each date. Rklawton 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doh! My bad. March 1st? I was thinking January 1st. I haven't a clue, either. Rklawton 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Trudeaus

I have added the birth of the sons of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Sasha and Justin Trudeau, who were both born on 25 December 1973, and 1971 respectivily.

newton

what about Newtonmas

I agree. Isaac Newton was born on Dec 25 by the old style (Julian) calender, which was in effect at the time. I am adding him, with a note on the calender change. LeeSawyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.120.53 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ under the "Birth's"

The article currently only says "Jesus" as the name of the person born on December 25. "Jesus" was a fairly common name in that period. I had edited the name "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" to be more specific. Moreover, earlier today (26 December 2005) I had edited the year from "1 BCE" to "1 BC". The BC/AD system is more frequently used in the world and on Wikipeida at this time and is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ, whose birth is being dated. The "Births" section of this page would be much more correct and better understood by the masses if for the birth of Jesus Christ it said "Jesus Christ - 1 BC" rather than "Jesus - 1 BCE"

== Wikipedia should be inclusive, not divisive ==

While BC/AD "is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ", Wikipedia is for everyone and BCE should be used because it is inclusive of everyone. AlwaysNeutral (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC) ==

Jesus links directly to the article for the most widely known person with that name, and no one who clicks that link is going to be surprised. "Christ" is not a name, it is a title which expresses a point of view which is not shared by everyone. Leave it at the simple nuetral link to the name, not at a redirect. And before you edit a single additional page, please look up the proper use of the apostrophe. "Birth's" is an abomination. CDThieme 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

His name would best be listed as "Jesus of Nazareth".PENJrAV8R (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the traditional date of Christ's birth is AD 1, not 1 BC! jguk 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Christ's birth is traditionally 25 December, 1 BC, His first full year of life being in AD 1. 24.222.79.90 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

That's a matter of POV specific to Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic churches would beg to differ. What is NPOV in this matter is that Roman Catholics and (most) Protestants celebrate the Christmas holiday on the 25th. As a result, references to Christ's birth belongs under holiday (just as it should on other dates also celebrated as Christ's birth by other Christians). The point is, let's keep NPOV. Listing Christ's birth as a fact on a specific day is POV - even within Christian communities. Rklawton 19:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was not born on December 25 because the early Christians coudnt celebrate his birth or thy would be executed.Thus it is a pagan holiday because they placed it when the Romans were celebrating the birth of the God Sol

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove or disprove information but to provide properly cited encyclopedic information on a topic, therefore if Jesus can be cited as being born on December 25, that information should be recognized on this page. Any information to counter this should also be noted and properly cited. Until sufficient evidence is provided to reach consensus, all supportable information should be included. Exclusion of this information when it is properly cited is itself a form of bias.PENJrAV8R (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The R.C. of Saints should come before Roman Festivals

The Roman Caledar of Saints observance of "The Nativity of the Lord" should come before the Roman Rituas "(re)birth of Sol" since there are more persons on Earth at the time that consider themselves Roman Catholic than of the Ancient Roman Mytholicial Religion.

edit wars

no silly edit wars, please. Why don't we compromise and put BC and BCE next to each other or something.--Alhutch 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm not going to permit people removing BCE unless we have a discussion about it here or elsewhere first and come to a consensus.--Alhutch 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While we're on the subject, Darwiner111's been blocked 5 days by Knowledge Seeker, and I myself have blocked Jonathunder for 3 hours - as an admin he should know better than to break 3RR. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Block in error, unblocked. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made my third revert, so as the article stands it reads BC. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So wait, is this article supposed to read BC then next to Jesus's birth since it was there first? Homestarmy 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Chinese (in general) all have their own calendars, I think that the NPOV term would be BCE - as it reflects the world's majority. Certainly as a Christian I don't find the term BCE (or CE) factually untrue. Conversley, historians and religion scholars have reached consensus that Jesus, as described in the New Testament, was not actually born in 1 BCE. Therefore the BC/AD designations are factually disputed, whereas BCE and CE are not. In short, there is no doubt that this present year is commonly referred to 2006, even though the "year of our lord" is not precisely known. Rklawton 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Era or Anno Domini?

Reference to Jesus' birth prior to the edits by User:Jonathunder involved either BC or AD without argument, and the introduction of the common era terminology was undiscussed prior to its replacement of BC. I believe there should be a discussion and perhaps a vote here on the discussion page as to whether BC or BCE should be used, and if nobody discusses or votes, I will take the liberty of changing BCE back to the original BC, pointing to this discussion article as reference. 1929Depression 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I agree, I tried to ask about this very same thing a couple days ago but nobody answered, if it started out as BC, (And apparently it did) then it should stay BC. Plus, it just plain looks ugly putting BCE next to Christ. Homestarmy 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous, Homestarmy. You wouldn't believe the amount of discussion at the Jesus talk page about whether AD or CE should be used on that page, there's at least two archives detailing it. They've apparently come to the consensus of using both (i.e. 198 BC/BCE), which is frankly absurd considering Jesus is the reason for the original anno Domini terminology and the "new system" is just a Christian-neutral equivilent to anno Domini, which is hardly applicable to Jesus. However, secularity is on the rise and atheists now occupy 14% of the American population, as opposed to around 8% in 1991 so what do you expect. I still think anno Domini should be used here though and since you agree I will revert the BCE alteration if there is no further discussion in the next 24 hours. 1929Depression 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Of course this discussion is entirely ridiculous - especially as the traditional year of Christ's birth is AD 1, not 1 BC. It's all really logical really. Indeed, in England, up to the middle of the eighteenth century, the year began on 25 March because it was on 25 March AD 1 that Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she was with child (if you haven't noticed, 25 March is exactly nine months before 25 December). When it was changed so that 1 January was the start of the year, the year dates changed by attributing January, February and the first part of March to the year after the one they were previously attributed to.

Not for the first time this puerile campaign to impose politically correct nonsense has ended up introducing inaccuracies into Wikipedia. Not only should it stop, ironically you don't even need to refer to AD 1 if you don't want to, you can just call it 1! jguk 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really all that much in favor of BCE. I don't see what's better about it. You can't call it secular, since it's just a disguised way of still using the Christian system. If we're going to use the Christian system, let's be upfront about it. Also, I think the policy concerning this issue on Wikipedia is to just stick with the system that was used in the original writing of the article.--Alhutch 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - The original article uses B.C. and A.D. It also says that Christ was born in 4 B.C. by later calculations, and 1 A.D. by tradition.--Alhutch 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

4 BC is an estimate. 8 BC to 4 BC is generally estimated, with some sources having a tighter estimate of 6 BC to 4 BC (Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and that provides the cut-off), jguk 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, so it should definiently now be BC? Because I can't find in the edit history where anyone has recently tried to switch it back besides NSLE and 1929, and I can jump in if we need it. Homestarmy 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! It should definitely be AD 1. The article is currently WRONG!!!!!!!! jguk 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think BC/AD would be appropriate in this case, although I have just blocked User:1929Depression for block evasion as a sockpuppet of User:Jordain/User:Darwiner111/User:PatrickA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, BC would be entirely inappropriate here - it's AD you want:) jguk 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jguk, Exiguus interpreted Christ's birth as being 25 December, 1 BC, thus the year AD 1 being the first full year "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". Since there are only 6 days remaining after 25 December in the calendar, if Jesus were born on 25 December, AD 1 this would mean his first full year on earth would be AD 2. See the article 1 BC for more information. 24.222.79.90 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh man, here we go again....I really don't think Christ minds too much if we say He was born in either 1 AD or BC, it's not like this dating system was particularily Biblical anyway or that He gave us a warning that all those who did not know the exact date He was born would not recieve forgiveness, they mostly used the Hebrew calender back then, which was really very different that our modern day system, as I understand it, months and years could be flexible somehow anyway. Do we have to argue about this? Homestarmy 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Homestarmy, this 25 December article doesn't acquire just a Christian audience. Just because the dating system was "not particularly biblical" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to post the most accurate information possible. It is a good idea to attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether Exiguus historically meant for Christ to have been born in 1 BC or AD 1. I'm pretty sure it's 1 BC so that's what I'm voting this page display. As for those who argue that using anno Domini targets only a Christian audience, the common Era also refers merely to the birth of Jesus yet simply masks that fact, therefore offends even more people, including Christians. 24.222.79.90 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I wasn't trying to say we shouldn't use BC because its not in the Bible, im simply saying that the BC/AD system was a result of man responding to the Bible on their own, it wasn't directly commanded that we should use that system. Of course, this doesn't mean I want BCE, I think the whole BCE thing is really a conspiracy, but the point I was trying to make is before we get into a fight between 1 AD and 1 BC, we should remember its not a mind-bogglingly important issue we figure out which one is historial fact. Homestarmy 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Jesus was clearly around from the 25 March preceding his 25 December birthday, why wouldn't AD 1 start on the 25 March on which Gabriel announced to Mary that she was with child? jguk 08:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the English Calendar of the Middle Ages, 25 March is New Years

Why mention Christmas without Christ?

I am fully aware that the name "Jesus Christ" refers specifically to the Christian concept, and therefore represents a point of view. So then, why should a holiday created by people who worship Him not actually have reference to His name, when said holiday was created by people with a point of view as well? Can't say "Christmas" without "Christ" and whatnot. Besides, if the name Jesus is all that is there, with an encyclopedia as diverse as this is, you could be meaning the muslim definition of Jesus, the Hindu definition of Jesus, the historical revisionist/deletist view of Jesus, it isn't specific. The only religion in the entire world responsible for the creation of Christmas didn't just do it for any old interpretation of who Jesus was, they did it for Jesus Christ. What other major religions out there celebrate a Christmas about Jesus Christ while not actually being Christianity itself? Does anyone understand what im trying to say? :/ Homestarmy 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry starts with this sentence: "* Christmas Day is a Christian holiday on this day celebrating the Nativity of Jesus. " That makes the Christian origin abundantly clear. If the reader clicks on that first link, Christmas Day, they would find much more information on the Christian meaning of the day. Jonathunder 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But how is everybody supposed to know that Christians are celebrating a particular viewpoint on who Jesus is, not everybody knows that Christianity is about Jesus Christ, not just any old vauge definition of Jesus that other people might propose, nor does everybody who reads a wikipedia article click on every wikilink. What exactly is the worth of removing the word "Christ"? One would think with the word "Christian" the POV of the sentence is already made clear, so why must it end with less clarity POV wise? I don't see how NPOV necessarily should translate into lower clarity. Homestarmy 15:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If a user clicks on Jesus of Nazareth, they will shortly find that he is figure called Christ by Christians. A user, even one ignorant Jesus, could therefore use reason to grasp that Christmas relates to this figure. Mind you, a computer user ignorant of the existence of Jesus and Christmas strikes me as a rare creature indeed. In any event, if said user were too lazy or uninterested to click on either Jesus of Nazareth or Christmas Day, he will continue to be ignorant of Jesus by his choosing. If he is truly this out-of-touch with world culture, I see no benefit in giving another, more overtly religious name by which to know Jesus, thus confusing the user. The link between Christmas and Christ is not likely to be clear to such an obtuse hypothetical reading unless he clicks on something. In the meantime, while we worry about the one computer user who might not know at least an outline of who Jesus is, the name "Christ" is a plainly religious epithet, known to be considered POV by other world religions. In this case, the good of the many known non-Christians outweighs the good of the very few hypothetical users who can't figure Jesus of Nazareth out, and are also unwilling to click to further their learning. 64.157.32.1 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Christmas already overt enough to just go ahead and go the full mile? I mean it said "Jesus Christ" for a very long time I think before Thumbelina I think changed it. Homestarmy 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no generally accepted alternative names for that holiday. There are many generally accepted alternative names for the person. Those of us who prefer neutral language would, trust me, rather change the name of the holiday than refer to the person by his religious title; therefore, content yourself with this status quo, and consider it as a "glass half-full" solution for your point of view. The direct answer to your question is "No, just because WP must use one name of questionable neutrality in a case where there are no alternatives, it does not follow that WP should use less neutral language in all related cases." Not every leak must burst a dam. 64.157.34.149 19:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here. Is it possible there are two Christmas holidays - one secular and one non-secular... one involving Santa, presents, parties and no need to mention Christ, and the other involving celebrating Christ's nativity with a special mass (or church service)? Just thinking out loud here... Rklawton 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a notion with wide currency in social sciences and some Christian communities, who object to the commercialization of the day. Any expansion of that here would be highly speculative, however.

Separately, I do not see consensus here to remove Jesus from births altogether. While I confess, as a non-believer, that I fully concur that the chances of his nativity occurring on this day are about 1/365, I believe the tradional date deserves noting under Births. Unlike your speculation, speculation regarding 12.25 has an established history and the backing of churches. To note this is appropriate, and does not constitute and endorsement; rather it adds to a reader's understanding of the day. That a birthdate is tradition and uncertain does not prevent this mention being made, so long as it is annotated. I do concur that similar mention needs to be made on January 6, and any other day with wide support among major churches. I will now revert to include. Lastly, RKLawton, as a fellow skeptic, I'd urge you to let the birth stay. We have a happy equilibrium of neutral langauge here -- removing the birth altogether is provocative, I think, and leaves the encyclopedia incomplete, as least to my eyes, and I am no friend of the Christians. 64.157.34.149 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that letting it stand would "keep the peace" (my interpretation). However, it reflects a minority POV that suggests that this is a western Christian encyclopedia with special POV exceptions for "members only." On a separate note, I am a believer, and I believe that the New Testament makes no reference to date and a reference to year that makes it clear the year wasn't 1 BCE. In conclusion, I won't revert (as per policy). I am satisfied that I have made my point. I also appreciate your thoughtful discussion. Rklawton 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's totally true that we don't know exactly when Jesus was born, but the traditional birth date is the basis for our entire dating system, why should this be removed? We don't know the exact birthdates of many historical figures, and while Jesus's birthday might be even more abstract than most, considering His traditional birthday was responsible for so much, and considering the issues that happened over this article in the past, what's the point in trying to stir up the hornets nest? Homestarmy 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was born in AD 1, not BC 1

According to traditional Christianity, the birth of Jesus was in AD 1. The term "The year of the Incarnation" is sometimes used in older Papal bulls, encyclicals and the like instead of "Anno Domini" or "The year of Grace". Also, the reason the English used to celebrate New Years on 25 March is because the Church celebrates the Incarnation on that day, which is the day that the AD dating system supposedly begins. StThomasMore 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was "traditionally" born in 1 BC (BTW, the "BC" comes after the year), not 1 CE as per your suggestion. The Church celebrates the incarnation on 25 March because it is 9 months prior to 25 December, the traditional date of birth of Jesus. Jesus, according to the 1 BC article (and most historians) was born (traditionally) on 25 December 1 BC, thus making 1 CE the first year "In the year of (the) Lord". If he was born 25 December 1 CE, then the year 2 CE would be the first year "of the Lord", because there are then only 6 days remaining in the year 1 CE. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jesus was, in Western Christian tradition, concieved on 25 March AD 1, which is, as I said, why the British formerlly celebrated New Years on that day, it was the day the AD system bgean. Since Jesus Christ was concieved 25 March AD 1, he was born on 25 December AD 1, not 25 December 1 BC. Also, I don't know why you are correcting me on the placement of the letters BC, seeing as I did not use that term in my last comment.

Do you have a source that explains that Jesus was conceived on 25 March, 1 CE? Academics mostly agree that Jesus' birth is traditionally placed at 25 December, 1 BC. As for the BC placement, your quote: "Jesus was born in AD 1, not BC 1". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

CHRISTIAN ERA

Foremost among these is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living. This was introduced about the year 527 by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk resident at Rome, who fixed its starting point in the year 753 from the foundation of Rome, in which year, according to his calculation, the birth of Christ occurred. Making this the year 1 of his era, he counted the years which followed in regular course from it, calling them years "of the Lord", and we now designate such a date A.D. (i.e. Anno Domini). The year preceding A.D. 1 is called Ante Christum (A.C.) or Before Christ (B.C.). It is to be noted that there is no year O intervening, as some have imagined, between B.C. and A.D. It is supposed by many that the calculation of Dionysius was incorrect, and that the birth of Christ really occurred three years earlier than he placed it, or in the year of Rome 753 which he styles 3 B.C. This, however, is immaterial for the purposes of chronology, the first year of the Christian Era being that fixed, rightly or wrongly, by Dionysius. His system was adopted but gradually, first in Italy, then in other parts of Christendom. England would appear to have been among the earliest regions to have made use of it, under the influence of the Roman missioners, as it is found in Saxon charters of the seventh century. In Gaul it made its appearance only in the eighth, and its use did not become general in Europe until after A.D. 1000; accordingly in French the term millésime was frequently used to signify a date A.D. In Spain, although not unknown as early as the seventh century, the use of the Christian Era, as will presently be shown, did not become general until after the middle of the fourteenth century.

-from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm#christian) StThomasMore 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From "Dionysius Exiguus" (Wikipedia article):

"Ever since the second century, some bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire had counted years from the birth of Christ, but there was no agreement on the correct epoch — Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320) wrote about these attempts. Because Dionysius did not place the Incarnation in an explicit year, competent scholars have deduced both AD 1 and 1 BC. Most have selected 1 BC (historians do not use a year zero). Because the anniversary of the Incarnation was 25 March, which was near Easter, a year that was 525 years "since the Incarnation" implied that 525 whole years were completed near that Easter. Consequently one year since the Incarnation would have meant 25 March 1, meaning that Dionysius placed the Incarnation on 25 March 1 BC. Because the birth of Jesus was nine calendar months later, Dionysius implied, but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC. Only one scholar, Georges Declerq (Declerq, 2002), thinks that Dionysius placed the Incarnation and Nativity in AD 1, basing his conclusion on the structure of Dionysius's Easter tables.". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Until I find further evidence, I will let it be 1 BC. Happy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs)

Also—and you agree as per your edits at 25 March—Jesus died (traditionally) in 33 CE, and tradition also maintains that he was 33 years old at death... this would mean that he was born on 25 December, 1 BC (traditionally), unless he died sometime between 25 December and 31 December, 33 CE. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so all of the Biblical scholars who place Jesus' birth between 6 and 4 BC are, like, wrong, StThomasMore? That Dennis the Short screwed up in his calculations (admitted and then dismissed out of hand by the Catholic Encyclopedia) doesn't matter? It must be really neat to be able to just toss aside evidence not in agreement with dogma -- but hey, if the facts don't fit get new facts, right? And of course, while December 25 may be the "traditional" date (beginning in the mid-fourth century CE), it's certainly not a historical date, now is it? And it's not like December 25 had any meaning to pagans who worshipped Mithra or Sol Invictus, other than that it was their high holy day, thus creating a really neat way to say to them, "See your god is our god, and our god can be your god if you just join us" -- INHOCSIGNOVINCES* and all that.

*The myth regarding that message is rather ironical: Constantine, who grew up entirely in the East, knew no Latin but rather spoke Greek, thus the message as reported would have meant nothing to him -- in fact, had he taken the letters to be Greek at first glance, he might've thought it was really bad Greek for "in the dawn". On the other hand, since that myth grew out of Western Christianity where Latin was King, the message couldn't very well have been in Greek, now could it?

But, I digress -- the date as related to Jesus really belongs in events, AND it should carry the historical y.o.b. of Jesus, not the dogmatic y.o.b. Believe it or not, the Church is occasionally wrong -- see Galileo for example. •Jim62sch• 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Impending Edit War

With the recent increasing reversions and a difference in opinion as to whether the birth of Jesus should be noted at this article, I can sense another edit war in this article. Before we get to this point, I think we should talk it out here. I believe Jesus' birth should be noted here, either in Events, Births, or both. Dionysius Exiguus placed the birth of Jesus at 25 December (or at least the date of his incarnation on 25 March) in 525 CE/AD and this is an historical event worth noting. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it is a significant event, an EXTREMELY significant event, (and I, by the way, am Catholic) since it is a birth, it should probably be exclusively in the births. StThomasMore 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert again and I will block you for edit warring. I have warned you on God, I have warned you on your talk page. Cease this disruptive behavior. Discuss changes on Talk and only after you have achieved considerable support, preferably consensus, should the edits be made. Do not revert when multiple editors are disagreeing with you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, as the date is not historical, the item belongs in events. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire point is that the date is not historical, thats why the birthdate is supposed to say "Traditional date" or "Traditionally accept date" or whatever. Homestarmy 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Post preferred versions here for straw poll? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Jesus mentioned in "Births"

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

1. Though Jesus was born ca. 8–4 BC, traditional date should be acknowledged here (with disclaimer) as the actual date is otherwise unknown — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

   You state below that " We all know that Jesus was most definitely not born anywhere near 25 December" yet you want this under Births? You know its wrong, but you want it here anyway? Odd approach. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I agree with the above user (for once!). He is traditionally said to have been born on this day and that should be mentioned, as should the fact that the exact date is unknown. Christmas Day should still be listed under holidays, of course. Thumbelina 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Ego agreo StThomasMore 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   When does this poll end? StThomasMore 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

   When we decide. Its a straw poll, only to guage if there is strong consensus for one approach. That has not been the case, there is no clear consensus. Further, I see no reasoning attached to the support entries in this section, and no cites have been offered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

   User:Homestarmy offered some citations below, and these will be used when Jesus is re-instated into this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

4. A traditional birthday marked as a traditional birth, what's the problem here? Is there a policy that says traditional birthdays should not be mentioned in day articles? Homestarmy 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
5. If this is somehow against policy, lots of other births listed under traditionally given dates should be questioned as well. Bubba ditto 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Almost everything else places his birth at this day, why wouldn't we? ILovePlankton 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

   Please clarify what you mean by "Almost everything else", and be certain you mean birth and not celebration of birth, and provide a cite. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

   I too am interested in what "Almost everything else" means. And yes, "celebration of birth" is what the date signifies. The fact that this date, as well as that of the Annunciation and Crucifixion are "traditional" (i.e., made up) means that these dates fail WP:V. For those not comprehending the numerological and mystical need for these "traditional" dates to be set where they are, I suggest you do a little research. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   Which is why we have an observances section - for those dates which are not supported by sources as being historically accurate, but which are observed on this day.KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

7. :YES! 12.28.220.3 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus mentioned in "Events"

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

Keep mention under "Holidays and observances" only

Indicate support by signing with # ~~~~

1. Birth is disputed; birth date is disputed; the event is the birth and/or holiday. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Convenit inter nos. (Ego agreo? What the hell is that?) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   You're the Latin scholar, not me. According to the online Latin translator[1], it means "I [am] rustic" where rustic can also mean cloddish, wild, unmannered, or boorish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   There's an online Latin translator? Oh well, it sucks -- agreo would be either dative or ablative singular of agreus (which is not now, nor has it ever been, a word), but, even if it were a word, using ego would make as much sense as carrying an umbrella in a hurricane. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

   sorry, I didnt know the latin word for agree... so I made something up. BTW, this is StThomasMore but I don't want to sign my signature because I'me not voting for "Keep mention of 'Holidays and observances' Only."—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs)

   No worries - if its indented, no one will mistake your comment for a support, and if they do, we can easily clarify for them. Do sign your posts, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, well, Latin is a rather tricky language. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

   I retract my statement -- it's not even good enough to suck. The opening lines of Virgil's first Eclogue, "Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi silvestrem tenui Musam meditaris avena;" are translated thusly:

   Tityre , you a space to recline up to, under covering fagi silvestrem thin Musam practice avena ;

   Now, I've translated the Eclogues into real poetry --looking for a publisher -- and oddly enough, I came up with something just a tad different:

   Tityrus -- reclining sweetly beneath the wide-spreading cover of the welcoming beeches --

   I behold; The woody Muse you ponder in unseeded meditation."

   QED. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

3. I think he was born on the 25th, but not with the level of verifiability that I would ask of someone who believed something that I didn't. Regardless, the 25th is the day the holiday is observed. As long as its mentioned. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
4. It would be inaccurate and misleading to put Jesus in any category but this one, especially since many scholards arent even sure he existed (I generally think he did but that's not very relevant). JoshuaZ 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

   Just for your information, there are only a very small minority of scholars who believe Jesus never existed, explained both at Jesus and Jesus-Myth. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

   Having been part of the editing of the Jesus article before it became a hagiographic Sunday School Lesson, I would hardly consider citing that as a valid source of information. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

   For your information, the "Jesus" article used to be called "Jesus Christ"...hardly evident that it used to be any more in accordance with NPOV. Also, the Jesus-Myth article explains the minority of people that agree Jesus didn't exist, and that article is completely secular-biased. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Agree, we aren't very certain when was Jesus born. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Dec. 25 is, as I believe all here agree, the observed date of birth, due to the actual date being unknown. Therefore, it seems clear to me that to place it under "Births" is misleading; it properly goes under "Observances". Powers 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Don't know if its too late to add that Jesus must have been born in Spring, because the sheep were out. Something that I read in a book somewhere. (It didn't say JESUS WASN'T BORN, MASSIVE LIE!!! like the Daily Mirror don't we love libel, but it was about the historic farming, and it said Sheep were kept in until about Spring)

Traditional Date....

After December 25, was written "Traditonal date according to Exegius". Now, that may be true, but more importantly it is the traditonal date in all Western Christianity (i. e. Catholicism and Protestanitsm). Now, in Eastern Orthodoxy, and I think also on some Eastern Catholic calendars, the date of Christ's birth is celebrated sometime in January, so I think it should be clear that it is only the traditional date in Western Christianity. Dionysus Exegius was not the first to suggest that Christmas was on 25 December. In the West, Christmas has been celebrated on that date since at least AD 400. StThomasMore 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to several sources (including this one [2] from James A. Veitch, Professor of Religious Studies, Victoria University of Wellington) Exiguus' calculations included a serious error, even accounting for the fact that he worked forward from a presumed conception of March 25, based on the idea that God created the world on March 25 and wouldn't have created his offspring on any other day. The problem is that Jesus (according to the Biblical book of Matthew) was born while Herod was still King. Jesus had to have been born in or before 4 b.c.

Does anyone have any source for Jesus birth? At all? If so, please put your cites here for consideration and discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really, really think you're misunderstanding all of this. We all know that Jesus was most definitely not born anywhere near 25 December 1 BC, the correct date was earlier, circa 8–4 BC. This is why we are affixing a disclaimer to the entry, citing the traditional origin of the entry. It is clearly verified in the disclaimer that the date of 25 December, 1 BC is not the actual birthdate of Jesus, but he is such a popular and significant historical figure that a tribute to his birth should be included at the one place where an exact date has been estimated, which is 25 December. Over 2 billion people in the world celebrate Jesus' birth on this very date, and almost the entire world bases their calendar on the "traditional" 1 BC birthdate. This is definitely worth a note on this page. I can understand if we move this tribute to his birth to the "Events" section, but we shall definitely not eradicate it completely from the article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really, really think I'm not misunderstanding that. For two days now there has been edit warring over a date that all of us (I think) except StThomasMore agree is basically wrong or a lucky guess, there not being a hospital birth certificate available. That's not even close to the point. The point is the edit warring. Don't do it. Discuss here your reasoning and provide cites to support your preferred phrasing on the entry. WP:CON, remember? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need citations. We are basing this entry on traditional (though non-accurate) sources and we explain this in the disclaimer. We don't need to cite sources for the fact that the birth of Jesus is celebrated "traditionally" on 25 December, and that his year of birth is traditionally placed in 1 BC because that is what we get when counting down from 2006. Whether his birth was actually placed at 1 BC or 1 CE is somewhat disputed, but scholars generally agree 1 BC. Putting "December 25, 8-4 BC" cannot be done because the "25 December" DOB is tied to the anno Domini calendar's "1 BC" YOB so we'd be mixing accuracy with traditional views. Placing a citation for an inaccurate date is absurd because we know the date is inaccurate, but we also know it's traditional and commonly associated with the birth of Jesus. According to the current poll above, we are currently leaning toward having his mention in the "Births" section, so a possible compromise would be to include a secondary disclaimer of "his actual birthdate is estimated at 8-4 BC". — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)Are you joking? One can locate "traditional sources" to back up every single version being inserted, edited, and changed in the edit war. We don't need citations? I beg to differ. Please re-familiarize yourself with WP:V. Here is the summary: On 18 June 2006:

• 1 BC - Jesus, central figure of Christianity (traditional dating) (d. circa 33)
• Changed to AD 1 - Jesus Christ, God the Son in Christianity, (Catholic and Protestant dating) (d. circa 33) [3] by StThomasMore.
• Changed back by me, STM changes back to his preferred version, CrazyInSane changes back... Jim removed from Births and states in his edit summary that (Jesus was not born on Dec 25, the date was selected to align with Mathraic tradition and the religion of Aurelian, based on Sol Invictus, real dob prob mid-summer 4-6 BC), then Homestarmy reverted back to the pre-StThomasMore wording, then CrazyInSane changed to *1 BC - Jesus, central figure of Christianity (traditional dating) (d. circa 33), Jim removed citing WP:V, StThomasMore inserted his version again, CrazyInSane moved to Events * 1 BC - According to traditional dating and Christmas celebrations, Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, was born on this day in Bethlehem. there was some minor editing of the Events entry, Whugotit22 put it back in Births (leaving the Events) as * AD 1 - Jesus Christ, thought to be the son of God in Christianity (traditional Catholic and Protestant date), StThomasMore removed it from Events, edited the Births entry back to his preferred version... are we seeing a pattern here? This is an edit war. You cannot simply state your position and consider the matter settled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry, Crazy, but this makes absolutely no sense, "...that his year of birth is traditionally placed in 1 BC because that is what we get when counting down from 2006". We already know the Dennis the Short screwed up the calendar by at least 4 years, so the counting backward bit gives a false answer, thus rendering the formula you propose valueless.

Second, the date, as it is a made-up date, belongs in events, not in births. I was trying to avoid an edit war by placing disclaimers in there, but since the disclaimers are problematic for some, I'm going to stick with my opinion (which has not changed) that it belongs in Events, or in a "Religion" category.

PS -- I can think of nearly 4 billion people for whom this statement does not apply: "...and almost the entire world bases their calendar on the "traditional" 1 BC birthdate." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By "Religion" do you mean the "Holidays and observances" section? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding ...Jackpot!!!!!! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to add your name to the straw poll CrazyInSane started above, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Polls are evil &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup?? — "Post preferred versions here for straw poll?- User:KillerChihuahua" — you were the one who suggested the poll in the first place, I took the liberty of starting it. Also, Jim, almost the entire world does use the Gregorian calendar, there are certainly not 4 billion people who do not—it is the standard usage calendar. When I said "...that his year of birth is traditionally placed in 1 BC because that is what we get when counting down from 2006", I meant that since this is the year 2006 AD (in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ), counting back 2006 years gives the date of 1 BC (or possibly 1 CE), obviously indicating that the traditional birth year of Jesus is placed at one of those two years. Your quote "...Dennis the Short screwed up the calendar by at least 4 years, so the counting backward bit gives a false answer, thus rendering the formula you propose valueless" does not apply to my formula because I was referring not to the actual birthdate of Jesus but the traditional one. Also, if you really want to find sources for the traditional birthdate then go ahead, but if the poll decides that Jesus is to be placed in the "Births" section, then it will be placed there regardless of any citations. It isn't original research, that is obviously the traditional birthdate. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Polls do NOT trump policy. Say it out loud: POLICY (WP:V) is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Polls are non-binding and not encouraged except on occasion to guage if there is consensus. Wikipedia:Consensus is a GUIDELINE. POLICIES supercede Guidelines. Are you finally clear on this? Or are you still confused? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "almost the entire world does use the Gregorian calendar, there are certainly not 4 billion people who do not". Uh, no. Chinese calendar, 1.3 billion people, Indian National calendar, 1.1 billion, Islamic calendar (most Arab nations, several African and Asian nations) roughly 1.1 billion. OK, so that's only 3.5 billion, but it sure blows the theory that "almost the entire world bases their calendar on the "traditional" 1 BC birthdate" out of the water.

BTW: a straw poll is not binding, so your statement that "if the poll decides that Jesus is to be placed in the "Births" section, then it will be placed there" is incorrect.

Additionally, if a citation is requested in acordance with WP:V then there damned well will be a citation or it goes in the Events section.

You missed the point re counting back from 2006...good thing I didn't bring up the more technical reasons why it's problematic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're missing a lot, apparently, CrazyInSane. Please note the mistaken notions that polls are binding, "traditional" means we don't need a cite", and polls trump citations. All very very incorrect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this all seems a bit off track, the way I see it, the question is whether or not it is verfiable that Jesus's birth is traditionally dated on December 25. Therefore, if I were to find citations which stated that this is the traditionally accepted date, I see no grounds for this argument. Am I close to the truth here? I've found a few citations to see if anyone likes them, this and this (Very bottom, some book excerpt) and this and this, would any of these be sufficient to show that Jesus's traditionally celebrated birthday does indeed fall on December 25? Homestarmy 17:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's about the size of it. As the holiday is a holiday celebrating birth, there is a futher consideration: where to put the properly cited tradtional occurance of the birth of Jesus. There could be arguments for Births, Events, and Holidays'n'Observances - looks like no one cares much about Events so the decision seems to be Births only, HnO only, or both. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, checked your links. The first states "Surprisingly, not only is the traditional year for Christ's birth off by several years, but His supposed December 25 birthday, widely celebrated as Christmas, is also off." The second, I am sorry to say, does not appear to meet WP:RS. So we have, still, nothing for the birth occuring on December 25. The birth is traditionally celebrated on December 25, which would place it in Holidays and Observances. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was looking for sources which said something along the lines of "Celebrated at December 25", I mean I would of been suspicious if they had said "Born on December 25", that probably wouldn't of been right. It's not just traditionally celebrated though, its traditionally recognized, which is somewhat different and I feel warrents inclusion under "births". Homestarmy 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed traditionally celebrated, which would be Observances; I have yet to see a cite for the actual birth taking place then, and two of the five Birth supports state they do not believe this is the date of birth. I'm wonder at what point we decided to be inaccurate on this encyclopedia? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

reduce indentIndeed... I know that I don't recall any changes in policy, especially in WP:V. Perhaps the subject matter at hand received a special dispensation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But the entire point of the line is to say that this is the traditionally recognized date, not the actual date, but its such an important date and the verification is clearly there that this is indeed the traditionally accepted date, what's the big deal? Should I go dig up sources with guesses by various historians on the subject, we can put Jesus on March 23, April 2nd, April 13th, etc. etc., but I don't see the merit in doing all that just to avoid writing traditionally accepted date. Why not just have a wikilink to a page dealing with the subject then if people dislike having the traditional date for Jesus's birth without more qualification? Is there any rule on date pages against traditional births? Homestarmy 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally accepted date according to whom? You? Me? Someone else here? That is OR, even if 99% of the editors on this page agree it is the traditionally accepted date, with no cite it is OR. Further, as it is a traditionally recognized and/or celebrated date, not an historical date, it belongs in Observances: it is the date the event is observed, not the date the event actually occured according to any historian so far as I have been able to determine. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the sources....? How could something be traditionally celebrated on a day yet not be traditionally accepted as the proper day for said celebration? I might also note that not a single date for anyone's birth or death on this page, or others I suspect, is sourced. Homestarmy 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy. Think Thanksgiving (American holidy.) The date changes from year to year, because of the way the holiday is celebrated. No point in your other comment; it is not germaine. 1) Fallacy of accident: there was no edit warring on any of the other dates and 2) Non Sequitur (specifically Affirming the consequent: they are wrong too! is not an argument for keeping something else wrong. See Appeal to tradition. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think appeal to tradition was meant to say that you shouldn't note when things are recognized traditionally simply because their probably wrong, it doesn't matter whether December 25th is the literal date of Jesus's birth, the entire emphasis is that it is the traditional date of birth. And from the Thanksgiving article intro: "In the U.S., the holiday is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November." where are the alternate dates and why are they not mentioned in this sentence in the intro? And I haven't been arguing to keep this date uncited at all, the citations are right there from when I found them. Homestarmy 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being unclear. Thanksgiving was the only holiday I could come up with off the top of my head for which there is probably a known date, which is not the date it is usually observed. Fourth Thursday vs. November 26 or whatever it was - that was the difference. Tradtional date of birth? Think about how that phrase parses. Traditionally believed or traditionally observed date? As far as your cites, I have responded already. The first states the date is wrong, and the second does not meet WP:RS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But if the sources didn't say the date was wrong, then they wouldn't be backing up the claim that it is the traditional, not the actual, date. Homestarmy 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

KC nails it. It's simply a matter of distinguishing between believed and observed. FeloniousMonk 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit War continues (7/10)

To forestall the renewed edit war brewing as of today, perhaps we could agree on a change of wording? What if we said "1 BC (observed) - Jesus, the central figure of Christianity (d. ca. 33)" or something like that? Powers 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note you use the word observed - Jesus' birth is already in Observances. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is, of course, precisely where it belongs absent time travel to somewhen between 6-4 BCE. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look which option I voted for above. I fully agree. I'm just trying stop this pointless edit war. Powers 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mean this to sound snide, but, good luck...buenos suerte...etc.

The small text thing seems a reasonable solution to me. Homestarmy 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The what? I suppose I need to scroll up, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Up I scrolled, and apparently something I missed. Care to explain, Homes? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it...uh, no. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet. What small text thing? =) Powers 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give the small font "for the birth of Jesus, see below" a try, as a compromise. It directs the reader who may be looking for it to the observances section (which I agree is the right place) without in itself asserting anything about the historicity of the date. Jonathunder 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, this is already on the lead in, "It is also known as Christmas Day to Christians and others who celebrate the holiday" (One question, eho are the "others"?). Second, I really don't see it as being necessary to the article, although it might reduct edit-warring. Let's see what other's think. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Christmas is observed non-religiously by many non-Christians. For example, certain secular aspects of Christmas have become very popular in Japan. Jonathunder 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a possibly more wiki-like solution: click on "this date" in the intro -- it takes ytou right to the observances section. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people would pick up on the intention quite as quickly as they would with the small letter thing. I'm compelled to ask though, how is it non-historical that Jesus's birth is listed below in the observances section? Homestarmy 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please rephrase your question, I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In this diff:[4], Jim writes "nope, sorry, nonhistorical" when removing the phrase "for the birth of Jesus, see below". I question how it can be argued that it was nonhistorical that mention of the birth of Jesus was indeed mentioned below during the time of that edit. Homestarmy 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. As I'm not Jim, I cannot speak for him, but perhaps he meant Jesus' birth date as Dec 25 is non-historical (which is accurate) and not that the observance of it is. This may all be moot though; the article seems to have stabalized with small letter link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit, JonBenet Ramsay

JonBenet Ramsay appears as a death notice on bothe 25th of December and the 26th of December, I have previously attepted to the first of these mention to bring it into line with the articel wikipedia hold on JonBenet Ramsay but it was percieved as vandalism and reverted back to it's previous form.

If an older user woulod like to review this I think it would make it less confusing.

--Jinx

Longest NFL game in history only 82 minutes?

A regulation game is 60 minutes and most games run 2 to 3 hours... is this a typo? BrainRotMenacer 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that's game clock time, not real time. It'd be about halfway through the second overtime. Powers ^T 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

historicity language

The "of those scholars" language wasn't mine, I've just been preserving it. But I'm not too attached to it. The current language contains a subjective evaluation that could never be cited, even in principle. "Although almost all historians and scholars conclude there was a historical Jesus, the vast majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." is what we have at the moment. "Almost all" is subjective, interpretive language. That probably applies as well to the "vast majority" in both versions. "Historians and scholars" might not be redundant but it certainly sounds so. So how about one of these: "Although most historians conclude there was a historical Jesus, the majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." or "Although most scholars conclude there was a historical Jesus, the majority of them agree that his precise birthdate is unknown." — coelacan talk — 12:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, does the existance part even need to be in there, surely people who think Jesus didn't exist would agree we don't know His birthdate? Homestarmy 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be there, otherwise the paragraph will not be NPOV, because it will only reflect the POV that Jesus existed. — coelacan talk — 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But its talking about the holiday, not Jesus per se :/. Homestarmy 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It says "Christmas Day is a Christian holiday on this day celebrating the nativity of Jesus." Real people have nativities located in historical, calendar time. I doubt that it would be possible to remove any reference to Jesus's birth from this summary of Christmas; I also doubt that it would be appropriate to do so. But unless that is done, the POV that Jesus was real is being presented, and needs to be balanced. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A nativity can be celebrated whether it is fictional or not. Homestarmy 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly true. If you want to add that Jesus was a myth, be my guest. — coelacan talk — 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to add that? The celebration of anything has no dependency at all on whether the pretense of the celebration is valid or not, it merely depends on whether people are actually willing to celebrate it. Therefore, I don't see why there needs to be a sentence concerning historical opinion on Jesus's existance at all. Homestarmy 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Implicit in the paragraph is the POV that Jesus was real. A mention that his historicity is not universally accepted is therefore required. I've explained this thoroughly already. Read WP:NPOV if you are unfamiliar with it. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence as Too Much Detail for a simple date of a holiday/observance. This is covered in the articles on Jesus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Rules!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.170.129 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Coronation Street?

Quote - "1987 - In one of the highest-rated episodes in Coronation Street history, Hilda Ogden leaves her home of 23 years to be a char to her doctor in the country." Is this of particular significance? I've never seen a Date Page list significant television episodes, do we honestly need to document events that took place on a British Soap Opera here? 198.53.176.173 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it; it would take a lot to convince me that event was on par with anything else in that list. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

December 25th birth

Add James Francis "Pud" Galvin to list of births for December 25th. (December 25, 1856 – March 7, 1902) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pud_Galvin Breens2 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

added, Jons63 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Description Edit, maybe

1950 - Yehuda Poliker, the goodest musician ever

Someone should fix that? --70.137.178.47 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the suggestion. Jons63 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The queens annual christmas address

"The queens annual Christmas address is made available on internet site YouTube." how can this be considered significant enough to be on this article. I am removing it. If you want to restore it, please go ahead but please tell me why below. --Smallbig/Anonymous101 on Wikinews 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's supposed to be notable because it's the first time it's ever been done on an internet video site, in the 50 years of the Christmas address. Not exactly world changing though is it? I'd say you were right to remove it. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the Queen's Annual Christmas Address being made available on YouTube for the first time is a matter of a public information broadcast, which is received throughout the world and will go down in history as did the original when King George V made his first on the wireless. The Queen's Annual Christmas address is still important in the 21st century and is enjoyed by many.. so I propose that it should be listed under 'Events' as it will go down in history! PoliceChief (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be handled the same way that King George V's first aired Christmas address is handled. That is, one line in the article about the Queen. King George V's address is more notable than the Queen's current address. It was the first that more than the people able to go to the address were able to hear. This is just a new way of broadcasting the message, nothing exceptionally notable about that. Jons63 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

• Jamiemillar says:

why is Jesus not allowed to be in the timeline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemillar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that says that he was born on December 25th? I can find plenty of sources that say his birth is celebrated on that date, but not a single one that says he was born on then. Unless there are reliable sources that say it, the information does not belong under the birth section. The celebration is listed in the Holidays and observances section since it is the holiday that observes his birth. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible says nothing about Dec 25, and as far as I know, biblical interpretations suggest he was born in Spring or Fall/Autumn (Shepherds out in their fields, etc) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, some churches celebrate christmas in January – see Christmas#Date of celebration. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion page needs organized/condensed

Obviously there is much discussion as to whether Jesus of Nazareth should be mentioned under births or not and as to the exact year to be assigned to this birth. I suggest we create a heading for all discussion regarding this topic divided into the following subtopics: "Inclusion of Jesus of Nazareth under Births", "Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth", "Formatting of date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth". Although I do not wish for people's comments to be censored or altered, I believe there is much redundancy in these topics (largely due to disorganization) so I would like to propose consolidation of arguments, again, for the reason to facilitate future discussion and to make the page more readable. Please delete my comments and this heading once these changes are made to the discussion page to further my goal of making this page less cumbersome.PENJrAV8R (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any more discussion of Jesus at all. To include the birth of Jesus, all we would need is a reliable source, and there aren't any - not even the Bible claims he was born on Dec 25. We also should not re-arrange this page, as Talk pages are kept in date sequence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is to propose clean-up of the discussion page (specifically on the topic of Jesus), not whether or not this topic needs inclusion, your comment is itself discussion of the topic, which would be placed in an appropriate section under my proposition. My point is that this discussion page has grown very messy, is not chronologically accurate, and is very difficult to navigate. PENJrAV8R (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But we do not clean up or structure Talk pages into sections - they are kept however people added to them at the time, as a historical record of what was discussed and when (as can be examined in the edit history) - old sections can be archived as they get older. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This entry does not have a NPOV. It should include all associations of December 25, or else be retitled 'Christian usage of December 25'.

This subject is greatly divisive. Many heated discussions take place concerning 'The war on Christmas', and Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas. People come to Wikipedia for answers. The least we can do is give them an unbiased article.

This article is written from only one point of view, the Christian usage of December 25. By excluding all non-Christian holidays, events and births on December 25 it presents only one narrow point of view.

It would provide an unbiased point of view if births, events and holidays on December 25 prior to the year 0 were provided; if not this article should be retitled 'Christian usage of December 25'.

AlwaysNeutral (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us any examples of "non-Christian" events that should be added? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

=Examples=

Why has Dec 25th been important thru the ages? Just after the Winter Solstice, December 25th is when the day starts to become noticeably longer. It is the date seen as the birth/rebirth of the sun.

A few of the Gods born on December 25th of a virgin, who died and were resurrected.

- Attis of Phrygia

- Mithra of Persia

- Dionysus

- Horus

- Krishna

- Zoroaster

- Jesus

Of the many religious holidays on December 25 started prior to year 0, Saturnalia is the one known by most people.

One position is that the church chose the date of the existing Pagan celebrations to ease the conversion to Christianity of the masses who were already celebrating December 25th. A new god with all the characteristics of the old gods would not be seen as a large change.

Another position is that Satan knew Jesus would be born on December 25th, so he created many false Gods with all the characteristics of Jesus to mislead people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysNeutral (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This entry doesn't sound NPOV

1989 – Nicolae Ceauşescu, former communist President of Romania and his wife, First-Deputy Prime-Minister Elena are condemned to death and executed after a flawed and summary trial.

Is it NPOV to call a trial flawed? I'm sure supporters of the guy think so, and opponents don't, so can this be reworked in a way that doesn't side with one view or the other? Any perceived flaws would be better discussed on the page for the guy or the trial itself (if it has a page) where they can be properly cited. 76.226.140.232 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Day = International?

I am aware that the scope of Christmas is very wide, but it should be noted that not all countries celebrate it. I was thinking that simply "Gregorian Calendar" or "Most countries" might be appropriate. What does Wikipedia think? --Marianian^(talk) 22:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's generally recognizable without qualification in the English speaking world and since this is the English Wikipedia, no adjustment is needed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, how would we able to tell from the Julian version? There's a risk of confusion there. I am only concerned about the actual article, not the "Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page" bit. --Marianian^(talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington crossing the Delaware

Adding time elements (at night) and (on Dec 26) to the entry for Washington crossing the Delaware is unnecessary to understanding what the event was. That's all we're trying to do here. It's in the reader's best interest to keep these entries as succinct as possible for scanning. IMHO, of course.

I do believe that describing the Hessians as "mercenaries" is inappropriate, in that the army was hired en masse. The individuals did not sign on to be paid to fight for the British. They were not mercenaries as the word is commonly understood. A word like "forces" or "soldiers" would be a nice substitution. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the crossing started on one date and ended on another, adding the details makes clear that the crossing was started on the night of December 25 and finished on December 26, when the Battle of Trenton took place. This helps to avoid confusion with the reenactment, which take place during the day and Leutze's painting, which also appears to be during the day. It is consistent with the overview section of the main article. It was as brief as possible, yet designed to help readers from possible misunderstandings. I agree with using "forces" rather than "mercenaries". Zeete (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I put "at night" in another location -- not first -- and avoid the distraction of Dec 26. Had to shuffle some words to work in relationship between GB and Hessians, too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)