This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Holidays: Christmas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). Christianity: Christmas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

An IP editor has been trying to edit-war in Boris Johnson "canceling Christmas" on this page, and while they have finally stopped using that terminology, this insertion has a basic problem: the Evening Standard source being used doesn't show any controversy in the move. It does say that some health folks don't feel the new strain is as deadly as they claim, but there's no statement from them against the restrictions. The only non-Johnson statement on the restrictions comes from Keir Starmer, who, while finding the chance to snipe against the government's inconsistency, supports following these regulations. There may well be controversy over this move, but if so, it isn't in this source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would be reasonably come here trying to come to find information on Christmas Truce? Even with the term War on Christmas, I don't really see how that gets interpreted as what soldiers did in World War I on Christmas. I'll leave it in for now because it's not harmful, but if any other editors have input on whether or not it's a probable enough accidental search to have a hatnote for it. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes the claim: "As early as 336, Roman Christians observed Christmas on 25 December of the Gregorian calendar", which is logically impossible as the Gregorian calendar was not introduced until 1582 (by Pope Gregory), more than a thousand years later. 86.11.96.95 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of content and citations to the American Family Association, which is not a reliable source, and in most cases, not an actual controversy, but rather a manufactured controversy that AFA invented. All of these should be removed and replaced with appropriate secondary sources if at all possible. This strange idea that a partisan, activist organization gets to invent any controversy they want and then to use citations from the same org to talk about the controversy they invented needs to stop. That's not how things work. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]