Talk:Christmas tree/Archive 1

Egyptian origins?

I've looked around and it seems that the origin of the christmas tree might be the Egyptian tradition of bringing palm fronds into the home during the winter solstice. Supposedly this tradition migrated to europe, where other tree leaves and branches were substituted for the palm fronds. I'm not sure how this ties in with the germanic origins mentioned in the article. If no one objects, I'll add this tidbit about egypt. Zoffoperskof 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is there a link to a botanical reference to the Christmas tree, so despite looking for the apt' place to discuss this have used this heading. Perhaps I can be contacted for future discussion on this sub-subject. The Xmas tree is traditionally Picea Abies, but I was wondering if there's a different use of similar species in different mainly european countries? Or if due to economic reasons, the Picea is offers less of a return and doesn't look as 'trendy' these days. Steve DuboisSteve Dubois 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nordmann Fir is popular in Great Britain from what I understand, at least for use as a Christmas tree. Canada and the U.S. have a variety of popular species which are cultivated for use as Christmas trees. I have been working on just this topic lately, see Christmas tree cultivation to start. :)IvoShandor 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas ball

Another common Christmas decoration is a "Christmas ball", a reflecting sphere of thin metal-coated glass, working as a reducing wide-angle mirror. I deleted this because it's not about Christmas trees. Perhaps for a more general entry on Christmas decorations or festive decor? Wetman 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Trinity triangle

According to one legend, Saint Boniface attempted to introduce the idea of trinity to the pagan tribes using the Cone-shaped evergreen trees because of their triangular appearance. This isn't a genuine legend in the vita of Boniface, though efforts must have been made to "christianize" the symbolic fir and pine somehow. The "Trinity triangle" doesn't sound very likely, does it. I left it in the entry while we try to focus this statement. Wetman 00:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viking

This text about the sacrifice can only origin from Adam of Bremen? Adam does certainly not use the term viking when he speaks about the sacrifies in Uppsala, but in his books he speaks exactly about vikings in south sweden, and he says they vikings were pirats, nothing else. This is an error, in my opinion. Dan Koehl 12:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After almost one month, theres no source for the mentioned viking kings in the article, so I remove the term, of above reasons. Dan Koehl 05:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Query

Posted by the photo by User:Rebroad: (What is the relevance of it being in Germany?)
Reply: see the first sentence at Christmas tree#Natural trees about differing preferences between Europe and North America (and also that it has candles, not electric lights; candles are still widely used in Europe) - MPF 22:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square Tree

http://www.norway.org.uk/culture/christmastree.htm says that the gift is from the City of Oslo not Bergen. IVoteTurkey 10:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely Oslo on http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/trafalgar_square/xmas.jsp it says the Mayor of Oslo attends the ceremony. I'll change the article. IVoteTurkey

Ignore that - the article was referring to the tree in Newcastle not London. IVoteTurkey

Academic definition

For students, to Christmas tree a test (specifically a computer-graded multiple choice test) is to fill in the answer sheet randomly, or in such a way as to form a design. Reasons for Christmas treeing a test include boredom, rebellion, and desperation (for students who are not prepared for the test). The name (an example of "verbing") comes from one popular pattern, which resembles a Christmas tree.

I have never seen this usage of the term (is it an obscure regional use?). Can anyone supply a source? jdb ❋ (talk) 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secular symbol?

There has been a lot of controversy lately - you see some every year - over people putting up Christmas decorations and trees in public places, like libraries. Someone will come in and complain at the lack of Menorah or other holiday symbols, as to equally represent all religions (or at least all major religions, since it would be extremely difficult to represent every religion). The person responsible will argue back that a Christmas tree is a secular symbol, devoid of religious significance, and is a symbol of "the holidays." I personally believe that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol, but others argue that it's not necessary to have a tree to celebrate Christmas and it has no relation to the birth of Christ (not like a Menorah's significance and relation to the cleansing of the temple). I think this argument should be covered somewhere in the article. LockeShocke 00:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

however..... they do often have menorahs in hospitals around the holidays

The Christmas tree in no way is religious. It is totally a pagen ritual fused into Christianity by the early church. First of all, Jesus was not born in December. In Luke 2:8-20 it talks about angels appearing tho the sheppards in the field. The only time the sheppards would be in the field at NIGHT with their flocks is in the spring or autumn. It would be way too cold in December in Isreal. But all you have to do is explore the history of Christmas on the net to discover it has pagen beginnings.

Christmas itself is a joke. Yes, Christians should share the word with others at this time, give to the poor and generally just be helpful. A true Christina does this 365 days a year. But this holiday is not spiritual. I mean get real...how does a TREE represent Christ. Um..it doesn't. It's only tradition. In Mark 7:8 it talks about people not following Gods will but following the traditions of men. Jesus was the only perfect person. The bible is THE word of God. Don't follow non-biblical traditions that were made up by men. The whole Christmas season is made up by men. It's for selling and buying only. A tree is a pagen object that represents 'rebirth', the ornaments represent 'planets' which the pagens worshipped. If your a Christian who thinks Christmas is a great holiday that brings Christ into peoples home your delusional. Read your bible. Pray. Explore what Gods will is in your life. He wants us to SEPARATE ourselves from secular things. In 1 Peter 2:4-12 it tells us to not associate ourselves with worldly things. There is nothing more worldly and secular and pagen than Christmas my friends.

My favorite verse reads:

<<removed>>

I removed your Bible verse. why? I do not think this is the appropriate venue for you to preach, I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians will correct me if I have stepped over the line here. --203.55.211.33 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod and the Christmas tree

There are some people who believe that the Christmas tree is tied to Nimrod (king) and his death, as glorified by Semiramis. Is there any way this can be incorporated into the article? --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pleasant River Tree Farm

The information attributed to Pleasant River Tree Farm is not unique to that source. I suspect websites of Cooperative extension services could replace this blatant promotion. Better yet, a copyright-free version of information common to multiple sites could replace this. 66.167.253.252 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC).

Excellent idea, go ahead - MPF 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Mts

"(outside much of the Rockies< !--need a source for this-->)" - I've heard similar, with the reason given being that in the area, trees can be cut relatively freely for personal use from public lands so there is no market for commercially-grown trees that have to be paid for. I don't have a published source for that, though. - MPF 10:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis

Is the recently added Cannabis as Christmas tree section WP:V? How important to the overall article is it to make this connection? Does it rate a picture of its own? Would a link to Cannabis (spiritual use) be sufficient? I'm just curious as to what others think. (and will put a pointer to this question on Whig's talk page)... ++Lar 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant, and would be strongly inclined to remove it - MPF 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The substantial similarity of appearance and significance to the spiritual use of cannabis in early Christianity (by some accounts) merits inclusion, and the picture illustrates this quite well, I think. While it may be argued that extended discussion should primarily be moved to Cannabis (spiritual use) (and I'd agree), historical mention here is almost necessary. Controversial, sure. It is in any case certainly not WP:V. Whig 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cannabis is identified as the tree of life by some Christians and by all Rastafari, and perhaps significantly is also considered by some to be the Eucharist. The typical Christmas tree resembles a fully grown cannabis plant" - two sentences; the first has no relevance to Christmas trees (which as the article indicates, were first used in northern Europe, i.e., well away from cannabis-growing areas); and the second, a pure coincidence - the same could be said of thousands of other plants. Sorry, but I can't see its relevance to this page at all. - MPF 17:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have two concerns, one is relevance to THIS page (as opposed to a page on christmas rituals, traditions, celebration mechanisms, etc.)... as MPF says, there may be thousands of plants that happen to look like a christmas tree (and, tangentially, when I was younger, I used to play the "hey that plant looks like a pot plant!!! game) but that doesn't mean we should single one out, or that we should provide a list of all of them here. The other concern is that it would need to cite some references. Whig, you asserted verifiabiilty (or did you actually mean to say it is NOT verifiable?) but it might help if you cited references. I (as an editor, nothing more) agree with the decision of user talk:143.231.249.141 (was that you, MPF? perhaps not, long contribution record Special:Contributions/143.231.249.141 there...) to edit the content out. ++Lar 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not me, though I too agree; going by the talk page, it seems to be someone at the US House of Representatives - MPF 20:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Balsam Fir

Balsam Fir seems a natural to include in the list of firs for North America... it was the tree we always sought out. I see someone removed it, but am not sure why. ++Lar 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd suspect vandalism. I've restored it - MPF 12:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hanging Slaves

From the page:

Among early Germanic tribes the Yule tradition was celebrated by sacrificing male animals, and slaves, by suspending them on the branches of trees.

Do they really hang slaves to celebrate Christmas? 61.94.149.116 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My view: at this time of year, lots of people might be adding things that are not as well sourced as they could be... I'd revert everything that didn't have a cite, or is from someone with no history of editing the article in a positive way (said by someone with almost no history of editing the article)... the history has the info and it can be put back in later if needed. So I'd revert this. IMHO as I said. ++Lar 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the histories that described such sacrifices are now know to be propaganda by Roman and early Christian historians. There are "historical" records that attibute human sacrafice to Druids and canabalism to Christians. I think that those entries should note that and provide cite. --Wubby 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Organics

Saying "Organically grown Christmas trees are available, and are better for the environment." seems POV to me. It may be widely held to be true but it is not necessarily a fact, is it? I don't want to start a POV war so I just mention it here... user:MPF's edits generally rock! (although I'm guessing MPF is from the commonwealth? Was this article started in British English? A scan through the first few edits was inconclusive...)? ++Lar 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been well established from extensive controlled experiments that organic crops generally are better for the environment, with higher populations of wild plants, insects, birds, etc., than intensive crops sprayed with various biocides (fairly obvious, actually!); whether this has been specifically tested for christmas trees or not I don't know, but it is fairly safe to presume so. An organic christmas tree plantation will have natural vegetation between the trees, rich in flowers, which will attract insects and birds, etc; this won't be present in an intensively grown plantation - MPF 10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked it, see what you think. Revert if it really doesn't work for you. ++Lar 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice improvement, thanks - MPF 18:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Controversy

Someone added a note trying to establish when Christmas trees were first referred to as holiday trees, which may be a good thing. There's an older reference in, of all places, Up Yours : Guide To Advanced Revenge Techniques by George Hayduke (1982). The oldest reference I found (and I didn't look long): "Scented acres of holiday trees, prickly-leafed holly." - Truman Capote's story "A Christmas Memory" from, I believe, 1956. Although that reference is not to a public Christmas tree being referred to as a holiday tree, it still might be of some note? Schizombie 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit converted "alleged War on Christmas" to simply "War on Christmas." Since the existance of a War on Christmas depends upon one's own POV, what's the best way of referring to it here? I would have thought "alleged" held the middle ground between saying "bogus War on Christmas" and "War on Christmas"? Schizombie 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Paper/Tabloid

I changed tabloid back to paper in the "History" section. Tabloid is sometimes viewed as pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't hurt my feelings. I went back and read through it again, and felt tabloid was more accurate; however, since you were one of the principal creators of this very fine article - and wanted "paper"- I said fine, no problema.Hokeman 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange layout

At the point in the article as this shows

<< Modern trees

The first modern artificial Christmas trees were produced by companies which made brushes. They were made the same way, using animal hair (mainly pig bristles) and later plastic bristles, dyed ... >>>

after and partially covering the test at 'were' [at least on my browser] there is [edit] [edit]. What that is I do not know, but maybe the [edit] for sections in that area, screwed up by the image placement??? Can an editor fix??? --Dumarest 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinsel/offal

I'd read somewhere that the tinsel/garlands on a Christmas tree originated in an ancient tradition in which offal, particularly intestines, were wrapped in the branches of trees during the winter festival. I've tried Google, but all it brings up is pages about animals eating tinsel, and getting it caught in their guts. Kelvingreen 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issue

The author's interpretation of the Scripture from Jeremiah (which rests all of its weight on the particular translation of the Bible he chose) is stated as if it were fact, and leaves no room for any alternate interpretation/point of view. It reads like a Bible commentary and doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Braves27 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone else think that the main picture looks like it's upside down, and glued to the ceiling? It confused me a lot at first. Just a random, completely irrelevant opinion.-Babylon pride 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain it's not upside down, but it may well be attached to the ceiling. The ceiling fixture above it may or may not be coincidental. I know I've seen something like that ceiling thing before in Victorian-era homes, but I don't know whether it was decorative, or a gas fixture, or something else. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It just looks weird because of the ceiling fixture. I thought it was a base at first glance.-Babylon pride 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, its a hole from which a chandelier is raised and lowered. in this case the chandelier has been removed and the top of the tree is sticking up inside the hole.75.57.148.86 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Szaloncukor (parlour candy)

I think szaloncukor should be mentioned in the section about Christmas tree decorations. --89.133.240.82 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin on NPR's Says You!

Today, the topic of the origin of Christmas trees was a topic on Says You!. There were two mentions, only one of which is mentioned here. The one not mentioned is a tradition from Riga that began in 1510. The one mentioned was Saint Boniface. --☑ SamuelWantman 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's origi's aren't Christian.

What about the old Pagan ritual of lighting candles on trees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

the "roots" section reeks of WP:SYN, mixing origin legends with random comparanda of "plant decorations in winter", "plants and paganism" etc. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

stripped Christmas tree as a Christian cross?

What does "Some churches use the same stripped Christmas tree as a Christian cross at Easter" mean? A Christmas tree doesn't resemble a cross. Шизомби (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

fir trees "hung from ceilings"

This is highly dubious. Hewitt (2007)[1] has

by the 12th century, the Fir tree [of Boniface's] was being hung, upside down, from ceilings

compare to this Collins (2003) [2]

In the seventh century ... [Boniface legend] ... Five centuries later ... evergreen trees were hung from ceilings

It looks like Hewitt had Collins in front of him, and calculated 7+5 in order to come up with his "by the 12th century" date. Of course, both of these books are popular publications of the "last minute Christmas gift" variety and neither cites any kind of reference. Here (Brown 2005) is another repetition of the same stuff in a similar publication. So what is the source for this Boniface legend, and what is the source for this "evergreen trees hung from ceilings in the 12th century" thing? --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a Google Books search for "Boniface"+"fir." It turned up numerous references to an "old legend" that associates Boniface with the first Christmas Tree, but all of the references dated from the past 110 years, none of them was from a scholarly book, and none of them cited an earlier source. Seems like late Victorian/Edwardian fakelore to me. I'd recommend deleting Boniface from the article altogether--or else revising to make it clearer that the legend may concern an early-medieval saint but it seems to be a modern legend. I'd love to believe that the Christmas tree dates back to Boniface, but it just doesn't seem plausible.65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hanging people from trees

Somebody postet something about hanging people from the trees to resemble icicles in the 70s, and that the practice was discontinued in the 70s due to the deaths of millions. I got rid of that, but I'm uncertain what the text originally read ... Might be something to do with using plastic tinsel and it being a fire hazard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.237.207 (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Artificial trees

I noticed that much of the artificial trees section is unreferenced. I have been working on some stuff, first I did Aluminum Christmas tree, came here and separated it out into its own section, writing a referenced graf I summarized from the newly created main article. I am currently working on a broader "parent article" on artificial Christmas trees, I have it my user space. My thought is to come here and rewrite the artificial trees section, perhaps dropping the subsections in favor of a three paragraph section (referenced) summarizing the new main article. The problem is there is some information here that I either don't have, or haven't found references for, however, the information seems useful and I was hoping it could be referenced, I could then add it to my new article.

Since this is a pretty substantial content change I wanted to drop a note here first. I do, however, think that it will be beneficial to the article, which I am certain has seen an uptick in traffic and will probably continue to right up through the end of the holiday season. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should merge Aluminium Trees into your own article and that the main article should be Artificial Trees. -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Artificial trees is the main article, it refers to the aluminum trees article, which are plenty notable enough for its own article methinks. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

The article should mention the ancient theory that claims that the Christmas trees are supposed to represent the Tree of Life, modeled on the Holy Trinity. This is the same kind of theory that says that the Irish clover also represents the divine mystery. ADM (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Saint Boniface? See Saint Boniface#Legends. If so, my searches, including Google Scholar and Google Books didn't turned up any reliable references, only 3 informal articles:

• http://www.english.sariepaul.com/downloads/2007.12.03/2007.12.03%20WKLYacty.pdf
• http://www.christmasarchives.com/trees.html
• http://www.crediton.co.uk/tourism/boniface_crediton.html

If you find better sources you are welcome to edit the article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

australian Christmas trees

I'm dubious of the use of sheoaks (allo-)casuarina as Christmas trees - the decorations would all slide off. I've certainly never seen one used that way. I have seen murray pine used, but by far the dominant choice in southern australa is radiata pine (given it is a pest weed, cutting the babies from native bush is actually helpful). Albany woolly bush is regularly sold as a perennial Christmas tree. --Jaded-view (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethics of tree-cutting

I can't be the only one who has ever thought that cutting down a live tree for ornamental purposes is disgraceful. What would Treebeard say? Vranak (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion board but I would note that most trees used as Christmas trees are grown on farms, for the express purpose of being used as a Christmas tree. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is analogous to growing humans for the express purpose of organ transplant, which I'm sure you would find odious.

Anyway my real concern was the lack of discussion of this issue in the article itself. I guess I'll have to wait for my fellow humans to get up to speed on inter-species ethics. Vranak (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be vegan. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do you have some sources, I would be happy to add a section about the issue to the article (this article needs oodles of work anyway). :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. And no I am not a vegan. I am really just expressing my distaste of this impious custom. Good day to you sir. Vranak (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Touchy touchy, you're the one here equating trees to human life, I figured there was no way you could justify killing an animal, it was meant in jest, relax. I was serious about adding to the article. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I don't know of any anti-tree-cutting sentiment that could be sourced for the article. I was looking to find something about that here and was a little dismayed to find not a scratch. Vranak (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there is some, somewhere, it's not a novel idea, I've heard of this before, if I dig something up I will add it in. I am focused elsewhere right now, but I come back to Christmas trees and related topics every once in awhile. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mithraic origins?

This section:

Ancient Persians, during their celebration of the winter solstice (the birth of the sun god) used to decorate an evergreen tree called SARVE . The SARVE or "Rocket Juniper" - also known as the cypress tree, being straight, upright and resistant to the cold weather, was known as a symbol of enduring hardship, thus appropriate for celebrating Mithra. The younger ones had their "wishes" symbolically wrapped in colorful silk cloth and hung them on the tree along with lots of offerings for Mithra in the hopes that he would answer their prayers .

One source suggests that, Luther, the famous German reformer, in mid 16th century, having learned of the YALDAA SARVE, introduced the Christmas tree to the Germans. As cypress trees were not widespread in Germany, as indeed in most of Europe, the chosen tree became a variety of pine which was abundant in Europe.

...is fascinating, but it could use a more reliable source than what's provided. This claim that the Christmas tree dates originally to Zoroastrian practice can be found on lots of blogs, but not in any scholarly books that I've found so far. The closest I've been able to get so far is this book, which confirms that the sarv tree was sacred to Zoroastrians by the 12th century CE but doesn't mention any rituals or customs associated with its use in Yarva celebrations.

Can any scholars of things Mithraic/Zoroastrian/Persian help us out here? I'd rather not include the sarv material solely on the basis of one website--especially one website so non-scholarly that it claims the Bible dates Jesus's birth to January 6th! Give us a little more to work with, or the Persian stuff will have to go. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this stuff as completely lacking in WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion in Dates section

I'm deleting this from the section on dates:

In Europe, when the practise of setting up evergreen trees originated in pagan times, the practice was associated with the Winter Solstice, around December 21. Tree decoration was later adopted into Christian practise after the Church set December 25 as the birth of Christ, thereby supplanting the pagan celebration of the solstice.

The pagan origins of Christmas trees are a matter of (widely accepted) speculation, but so far our article presents no evidence that the pre-Christian pagans in Europe did set up evergreen trees at the winter solstice. The "ref" appears to be a citation, but it's only a footnote offering a side comment, not a citation of a source--and the side comment actually contradicts the material on Zoroastrianism that currently appears in the article. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. Instead of deleting content, look for sources or ask for citations, unless its plainly dubious, which this is not. I have found: [3] - which says: "he Christmas tree itself is the most obvious aspect of ancient pagan celebrations which were later incorporated into church rites. Scholars believe that the Christian celebration was originally derived in part from rites held by pre-Christian Germanic and Celtic peoples to celebrate the winter solstice." And this - which says: "A great many pagan cultures in Europe observed the Winter Solstice with ceremonies including the evergreen tree, which remained green during a time of year when everything else either died or hibernated."

I think the material has enough support out there to justify its inclusion. I will add the cites when I get around to it. Or anyone can. --IvoShandor (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that the Christmas tree is widely believed to be a tradition of pagan origin. I tend to believe that myself. But I wish we had higher-quality sources. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Section: 18th and 19th century

By the early 18th century, the custom had become common in towns of the upper Rhineland...

. I don't know who wrote this, but the first Christmas trees in Alsace and (present-day) Germany are documented since 1521, a Christmas tree has been set up in Strasbourg Cathedral in 1539. The first documents referring to the Christmas tree as a popular custom in south western Germany date back to 1605.Johnny2323 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Johnny. I would say fix it if you have a good source to back it up, from what I have seen this article has a lot of errors in accuracy. This article needs, and has needed, lots of help. It's still no where near adequate.--IvoShandor (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On the use of trees for winter-solstice celebrations

I noticed that some people above expressed concerns that the pagan origins of the christmas tree are fictional. Although this is original research on my part, I would like to make the following observations:

The fir, and holly, are some of the few green things that snow-covered areas would see in mid winter. The christmas tree was used in German countries, documented in the 1500's. A Most interestingly, Japanese Shinto mythology has a very specific winter solstice story about the sun goddess, Ameratasu, who hides in a cave, and it takes a tree decorated with jewels and a mirror (new technology for Ameratsu) to draw her out of the cave, bringing back the sun. The bible does mention the use of a decorated tree as a pagan ritual. The text is ambiguous, and there is no real reason to think that this does not refer to a winter solstice tree, other than to comfort Christians who do not want to believe that the Christmas tree is pagan (although a tree has nothing to do with the nativity story, either).

It seems from this that marking the winter solstice with a decorated tree might be derived from ancient practices, not necessarily German, going back to tree worship.

Supporting source for Shinto and more ancient practices:<http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/y9882E/y9882e08.htm> Trishm (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Usage Controversy

"A full study of the passage shows that the people would cut down a tree and work it with a chisel to engrave an image in it. They would also carry it from place to place as an object to be feared and worshipped. The only consistancies with Christmas tree customs seem to be that both are made of wood and both are decorated. It would be similar to comparing Christmas trees to armoires."

This strikes me as needlessly insulting to those Christians who follow the KJV only, or who for other reasons interpret these verses as a ban on Christmas trees (I am not one of them). I did tone down one of the other statements in this section about the "obvious" meaning of these verses to "more explicitly," since "obvious" is usually only subjectively obvious when it comes to interpreting the bible. The consistencies with Christmas trees are more than what is stated above: "they cut a tree out of the forest," it is fixed upright with a stand "so it will not totter," and traditionally decorated specifically with silver and gold (as in the Christmas song "Silver and Gold"), and they don't talk (except for novelty Christmas trees). The differences are that the ancient pagan trees were engraved somehow, and that they were carried. Since Christmas trees don't walk and must be carried also, this is really only a difference if the pagan trees were carried as part of a ritual (the verses do not explicitly state so, though this might be inferred), since I know of no ritual involving a Christmas tree being carried. Also, the verses do not explicitly state that the idols such as pagan trees were feared by the pagans (they may well have been, but these verses do not plainly say so), but rather that those following the guidance of the Book of Jeremiah should not fear the idols. In any case, these similarities and differences between pagan trees and Christmas trees do not set them as far apart as Christmas trees and armoires, so that comparison is not similar as stated; I am going to remove that last sentence, which doesn't seem in keeping with neutral point of view. Should the above paragraph be deleted, or just edited to make its point without being snarky (as I admit to some degree, I am being here)? Schizombie 02:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My view on this is that this section about the controversy is starting to overtop the rest of the article, at least to some degree. If there were a way to describe the controversy more succinctly without going into details that might be good. Perhaps a separate article is in order for the additional detail? (your information is valuable, though!) ++Lar 15:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, a separate article is perhaps a good idea. The title is perhaps not the most appropriate either, I suppose. The "name controversy" (holiday tree or christmas tree) is perhaps well-described, but I'm not sure "usage controversy" is quite accurate. Those Christians who oppose the usage of Christmas trees are quite adamant about not having them, while the majority of Christians who either have or support Christmas trees feel quite happy with their choice. However, these two sides don't seem to be actively engaged with each other, and it doesn't seem to be a public debate as with the name controversy. Schizombie 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Any idea what the bit about the Rood is doing in the usage controversy section? It doesn't sound controversial. Schizombie 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the tags on this section (NPOV and Unreferenced tags), I reviewed it and reworked it. Firstly, an overview article on the Christmas tree is not the place to argue over translations of scripture; if you want an in-depth article about the controversy on use of the Christmas tree, then by all means do so, but then please find some more references and don't introduce original work on the topic or your own opinions. What i did was take the NIV version passage. I also confirmed independently by searching discussion sites that this is indeed a recurring topic in Bible study circles, however it seems more of an urban myth than an actual theological position - I could not find any authority asserting that this passage was a scipture basis for not having christmas trees. There are, however, religious authorities that assert that Christmas should not be celebrated the way we celebrate it, but that does not belong to a controversy section on Christmas trees, but rather in the Christmas controversy article. I will move some of those comments there, to the extent that they are not already covered. Note also that the original text in this subsection I have for now left as a comment in the section per se, in case any other editor disagrees with my edits or wants to make sure I didn't cut too much. --Psm 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a whole article on Christmas Controversy, I'm all for including the whole discussion there. It all seems to boil down to common perceptions among different groups, whether it's Christmas or the Christmas Tree. Many of the same arguments have been repeated here. So it's not specific to the article, in contrast to real vs artificial trees. --Eddylyons (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

References and Quotations

The article seems to directly quote (from Chambers and others) from its sources. This detracts from the purpose of writing an article in the first place. I recommend paraphrasing what the source said and providing a reference link. --Eddylyons (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Tree Deals

Didn't look to see how long it had been there, put toward the end of the article there were several links to some website selling christmas trees inserted into the article. I removed those links as I assumed Wikipedia isn't an advertising agency. Einlanzer (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre Christian Roots and Origins (re: no, not the same)

It's confusing to have these sections separate. They should be combined. In fact "Pre-Christian Roots" contradicts "Origins" with regard to the Estonian origin. Maybe Origins could be retitled "16th Century" to be in line with the section that follows? And the Estonian thing be confined to one section? --Eddylyons (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Riga (Latvia) and Tallinn (Estonia) as places for the first Christmas tree were removed as these stem from "There are also some accounts that place the earliest Christmas trees in Tallinn (Reval) (now capital city of Estonia). In the two Hanseatic cities the merchants of the Brotherhood of Black Heads guild are known to have carried trees to the city center during Christmas. ..." (This claim is refuted in the 2005 Estonian study "Anu Mand. Urban Carnival, Festive Culture in the Hanseatic Cities of the Eastern Baltic".) The fake claims are however being spread by too eager tourist industry, who will even show tourists commemorative plaques in these cities central squares where the first Christmas tree stood. I'm from Riga and I'm appalled at this "invented" history. Kalvis.apsitis (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the root and the origin are the same. And IMHO the Estonian fake story may be fun / notable, I think it's ok this way now.--Flammingo^Hey 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always considered the terms "roots" and "origins" to mean essentially the same thing. How are they different enough to warrant using them both? --Eddylyons (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

From the context you can read in the article. Root=preceding development, ie. before the actual origin of something.--Flammingo^Hey 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen

Shouldn't Adam of Bremen's account of pre-Christian Germanic worship, in which the bodies of human sacrifices were suspended from ash trees, be mentioned? Serendi^podous 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

'Dark side of the moon'

It would be interesting, if the article would also give some information about the number of trees, that approximately are killed each year, just to make the relevant Christian feast more festive. It must be billions. Although it's not very likely, that there are citations available already about that subject, there's no doubt, that to many Christmas is not a feast, but a rather saddening event, just because on this occasion so many living beings, of which they respect life as much as of people and of animals, are killed without any real necessity. In this context one may think of among others Fruitarians, who are known to be conscious/convinced of the respectability of plant life as well. --VKing (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick search on Google reveals that the U.S. government actually keeps track of the number of Christmas trees harvested within the United States. The number is 20.8 million as of 2002 (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005870.html). Obviously "billions" of trees are not killed each year, as this would approach one Christmas tree for every human being on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.162.217 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it must be one or more hundreds of millions. (By the way for production of those 1,9 billion Christmas cards, sent yearly in the US, and so maybe a total of 10 billion all over the planet, also many trees are killed, be it, that these are not pine trees. Christmas is not very peacefull to plants (and to animals and to environment)). --VKing (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious now that you are a troll (internet). But maybe this data could be added to the section on Christmas tree production, if it did not seemingly contradict the information found in the article on production? 74.250.162.217 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, only now I see, that already there is information about numbers of used trees in the article.

Maybe this is caused by the fact that the title of the relevant section is "Industry" and not something like "Market"; (the same may have happened to the user, who took to Google, to find information about numbers that are used each year).

Still that information was present in the article already and that makes me have to apologise for having started this item on the talk-page.

But...... it was not done "with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]", and so not by a troll (internet). It rather happened this way as a result of too little time, to read the article completely, before in this way trying to get the wanted information, so that it can be used in my and other's attempts, to make those, who evidently aren't yet in our vision, aware, of what in fact they are doing to wonderfull living creatures like these trees. --VKing (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"False Origins" paragraph

I removed this paragraph as it seemed to be the views and oppinions of one person, along with being fairly irelevant. (I fail to see the point in saying "it did NOT originate this way" after it's clearly stated how it correctly originated before that) Kenji 03 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

False claims about the first Christmas tree are made in Riga, Latvia and Tallinn, Estonia. Such claims are still routinely quoted in tourist guides ,, but they are refuted by Estonian historian ^{[Only one? That's not enough. More opinions needed]} Anu Mand and Latvian historian ^{[Only one? That's not enough. More opinions needed]} Gustavs Strenga . In both cities there is a documented tradition of German trader society Schwarzhäupter to burn a tree on Ash Wednesday (1510 in Riga, and 1441 in Tallinn), but it was burning rather than decorating a tree, and the tradition was not related to Christmas.

Hey Flammingo, I had to revert your change about "false claims", at least as far as Tallinn is concerned (I don't know about Riga). Go to the original sources as indicated in the footnotes and you will see that the Blackheads set up a tree and later burnt it BOTH for Christmas AND Ash Wednesday. Yes, you are right, in Tallinn the first record of a decorated tree is from much later (in 1584 Balthasar Russow discusses it as an established tradition, again BOTH in the context of Christmas AND Ash Wednesday), but this is of no consequence for our understanding of the 15 century trees as Christmas trees. The fact remains, they were erected for Christmas (again: read the original sources, not Anu Mänd's interpretations). Whether they were or were not decorated is secondary (may be it became a custom later, or maybe this fact was not deemed significant enough for the early chroniclers). --Vihelik (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vihelik, better leave a message on my page, I saw this entry only by accident - now, the false claims thing had been there many years and sourced too, so I had that reverted; mind you, I am not the on writing the paragraph originally. But now what Amelung, Weber and Russow say, (having had a quick look only, I'm afraid...) I removed an ambigious statement and left it in the "Reval" version. Only this one was unsourced and should remain here until there is a source given: The first documented use of an evergreen tree in a Christmas celebration is from Riga, Latvia, in the year 1510. The legend says that the first Riga tree was decorated with paper flowers and burnt on the bonfire after the ceremony. Another early reference is from Basel, where the tailor apprentices carried around town a tree decorated with apples and cheese in 1597.--Flammingo^Hey 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For us Jews, it's a December Dilemma

"The theme of Jewish children feeling alienated during the Christmas season," is found in introductory remarks of The Chanukah Song [[4]]. For Jewish parents in Christian societies, talk of a December dilemma is no overstatement of the case of keeping peace, not jealousy, in a home with young children. A non major Jewish holiday, and not commanded in Torah, Chanukah [[5]] ( also spelled Hanukah, Hanukkah, Chanukah, and Chanukkah-- from the Hebrew root for dedication) has grown to a major Jewish holiday in America.

Why did Adam Sandler write a song about this alternative December holiday? I don't know, but I am happy to lend my ear and walk away with a smile. Sandler is a Jew and a comedian. He knows of what he speaks, or sings. In Chanukah song number three, he apparently admits he felt like the only kid in town without a Christmas tree. And "eight crazy nights" is his response to a singular day of gift giving sung in his songs for American Jews and Jewish families who can relate to him.

Three Chanukah songs make the point for me, a new Wikipedia member, that there need not be any "Missing Citation" where this article mentions children in Christian societies may feel omitted. But How Now, can I effect a change in the missing citation situation? As I finish this note am I part way there? Aptlyspoken2u (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a dilemma for Christians too! Whatteh*ck do fat red-clothed goblins have to do with the birth of Jesus?!! I think it is some kind of detestable idolatry sneaking into the western culture, for which JHWH will smite us, unless we'll repent. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How real is the supposed pagan origin?

According to the German Wikipedia entry, the first Christmas tree was erected in 1605 in Strasbourg (now France, but the city's culture was mostly southern German back then) and this was many centuries after paganism ended in Europe, and even Martin Luther was already dead for decades by then. How much of the info on pagan origins in this article is well-founded, and how much is just speculation? 82.83.135.95 17:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the pagan ways did not disappear at once with the arrival of Christianity. Nobody knows when Jesus was born. It was a conscious lie from the church's side that he was born on the midwinter solstice in order to make a pagan festivity Christian. Moreover, it is a fact that evergreens were used to decorate homes in the Germanic countries since pagan times. If the first Christmas tree was erected in Strasbourg it only means that the Strasburgers already had the concept, but that no documentation of a previous Christmas tree has survived.

Is the connection possible? - Yes. Is the connection possible to prove? -No. The important question is whether the pagan tradition is relevant. I think it is.--Wiglaf 17:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

it is probably true that there is a pagan connection. It is, however, indirect. Unlike Carnival the tradition did not survive in remote or rural areas, as you would expect from a genuinely pagan tradition, but it became current in urban, burgeois circles in the late 16th century. I think the history section is fair, except for :

The tradition of hanging decorations (representing fruit or gifts) on the trees is very old, with some early reports coming from the Alsace-Lorraine upper Rhine region

because the first report is from Bremen, 1570, and very old is suggestive of much greater age. dab (ᛏ) 13:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One wonders if the origin of presents under the tree may have been an offering to the roving land-mammals to keep them away from early-human-ancestry treedwellers.

I hope I have not been all to bold. Please do review my edit. Here is my source: [6] (German language NZZ, the article will only be online for one month, and then until the google cache expires). dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

D

No, I think you have improved the page.--Wiglaf 22:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about proof from the Christian bible itself? Jeremiah 10:3-4 "For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an ax by the hands of an artisan people deck it with silver and gold they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move."

No, that's about making an 'idol' (a kind of statue) out of a tree. 'They cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel'(NIV) Elephx4 (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the alleged pagan origin of Christmas tree just a pathetic attempt atheists use to explain why they also use the Christmas tree? If the first historical Christmas tree is from the early modern age I wonder on what historical document or other sources is the pagan origin theory based. 85.135.224.153 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe atheists use Christmas trees, you're confused. Шизомби (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Yeah. How is it inside the box anyway? --IvoShandor (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Lichtfest," which was unsourced. I hunted around for an hour or two on Google Books, Google Scholar, German Wikipedia, and the .edu domain field, and could find no scholarly reference to any pre-Christian Germanic festival known as Lichtfest. I also found and added the citation from Chambers, though I'm not sure we should be citing him as a reliable source. In general, the pagan and medieval sections of the article still present a lot of unsourced and speculative statements; I hope other editors will help sort out the wheat from the tares and locate more sources. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I have tagged the article with {{morereferences}}. Hopefully as people drop in here they will add references. The article needs further verification.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Going to St Boniface's wikipedia paged revealed more sources, but then that would set the Christmas tree's origins back to the 700 CE (AD) time zone. This whole thing is rather messy, but I have organized it and cleaned it up as much as I could with verifiable facts Kenji 03 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is a Christmas tree generally associated with Christ? I have never believed it to be 79.67.107.57 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see that there is no reference to ancient tree decoration. In the Bible it condemns the practice --a pagan tradition of some ancient religion apparently, punishable by death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.230.177 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Included Templates

Shouldn't the Christmas Tree Template be listed on the page before the Christmas Template? Anyone care to fix it? 67.209.225.167 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wreaths

The page seems top heavy on Christian symbolism. The Christmas tree, as well as its decorations, lighting, etc., came from customs long-predating the Jesus era, where Romans and others took took boughs of evergreen branches into the home to decorate. This data should probably be in the lead. Any ideas or suggestions on how to word the information? Randy Kryn 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article also self-contradicts itself by linking the tree to the 16th century and Yule tree simultaneously, the latter originating much earlier than the 16th century I think. The Christian symbolism is overstated, and in fact some Christians don't deem Christmas trees or Christmas wreaths as Christian. The commercial culture behind it should also be stated. Some quotes are listed below that I got from David C. Pack on youtube, which also concerns wreaths. The general adornments around Christmas time seem to be linked, among others, to the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which he explains as: "The festival or celebration of Saturn (as in Saturday also), the god of sowing or planting, the fire god, because heat from the sun was required to allow for planting or growth of crops. He was also worshipped in this dead of winter festival, so that he would come back, as he was the sun, and warm the earth again so that spring planting could occur." I haven't checked the quotes below, but they may give some direction. Note that "pre-Christian" may refer to different times, depending on the location.

• An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang from a dead tree stump. The old tree stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the Oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia! – William Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs
• The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christmas Era. … The use of Christmas wreaths is believed by authorities to be traceable to Pagan customs of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as Christmas. – Frederic J Haskin, Answers to Questions
• The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log … are relics of a pre-Christian time.” – Encyclopedia Americana
• In the Roman world, the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchanging gifts. … December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun [not Son] of Righteousness. … On the Roman New Year (January 1) houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and Europe. … Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. Fires and lights, symbols of lasting life, have always been associated with the winter festival, both Pagan and Christian. – Christmas, Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition
• The Roman festival of Saturnalia, Dec. 17-24, moved citizens to decorate their homes, with greens and lights and give gifts to children and the poor. The Dec. 25th festival of natalis solis invicti, the birth of the unconquered sun [not son] was decreed by emperor Aurelian in AD 274, as a Winter Solstice celebration, and sometime (later) … was Christianized as a date to celebrate the birth of the Son of Light. – The Democrat and Chronicle, Dec 1984

Concerning wreaths:

• The European Pagans brought holly sprays into their homes, offering them to the fairy people of the forests as refuge from the harsh winter weather. … During the Saturnalia, the Roman winter festival, branches of holly were exchanged as signs of friendship. … The earliest Roman Christians apparently used holly as a decoration at the Christmas season. – Celestrales, Encyclopedia Britannica
• The European mistletoe is thought to have had special ritual significance in Druidical ceremonies and lives in folklore today, its special status as the Christmas mistletoe having come from Anglo-Saxon times. – Santalales, Encyclopedia Britannica

JMK (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, evergreen symbolism is thousands of years old, but this article is specifically about the Christmas tree, so the possible origins of this particular custom are accurately reported. It would be appropriate to link to a separate article on much earlier evergreen customs, and to explain that these may well have led to the Christmas tree custom. Dbfirs 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:First Christmas Tree monument plate in Riga.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:First Christmas Tree monument plate in Riga.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

The current version of the article contains too many images that either duplicate each other (e.g. [7], [8], [9], and [10]), are not informative, or have low quality (e.g. [11]). If history teaches us anything, the volume of image uploads (some undoubtedly worth keeping) will soon begin to increase as we get closer to Christmas. I suggest that before we face another seasonal deluge the present number of images be either a) reduced by deletion, or b) superfluous/uninformative images be listed as a gallery (yes, I do know that galleries only encourage more uploads). Comments? --Vihelik (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Dalit Llama (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas tree comes from Livonia ?

If you say the christams tree was mentioned in Livonia in 15 th Century. You should know that at this time this area belongs to the State of Teutonic Order. This Knight order was founded by northern german crusader, who failed in Jerusalem and colonized Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.130.90 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Common generalization that is only a half-truth. Before 1561, Livonia was divided into five sovereign states, namely those of the Teutonic Order, Archbishopric of Riga, Bishopric of Dorpat, Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek, and Bishopric of Courland, which sometimes warred amongst themselves. Parts of Livonia had also belonged to Denmark. --Vihelik (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful for Wikipedia to be able to cite evidence that the celebrations in Taillinn (then Reval) involved a Christmas tree rather than a tree danced around like a maypole. Is there other evidence of dancing around a Christmas tree? The burning of the tree makes the celebration look more like a generic mid-winter bonfire custom than a Christmas celebration. So should it perhaps be given as a predecessor of the Christmas tree rather than as a Christmas tree? Does the 1885 Geschichte der Revaler Schwarzenhäupter call the tree in question a Christmas tree? In 1584, did Balthasar Russow call the Taillinn tree a "Weihnachtsbaum" or "Christbaum" or any other of the terms used of a Christmas tree? By then the specifically Christmas tree was a well-established custom in some areas, as recorded in 1605: "Auff Weihnachten richtet man Dannenbäume zu Straßburg in den Stuben auf. Daran henket man Roßen auß vielfarbigem Papier geschnitten, Aepfel, Oblaten, Zischgold, Zucker" (quoted in Ludwig Andreas Veit, Ludwig Lenhart, Kirche und Volksfrömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, p. 81). Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Russow's chronicle was first published in 1578, and the expanded version in 1584. Among other things, he describes various customary activities during holidays and celebrations that had been common before the beginning of the Livonian War in 1558. And yes, he is explicit about erecting the tree for Christmas, decorating it, and dancing around it. Elsewhere he also talks about the maypole (not a tree!), so he wasn't "confused" about the tradition. --Vihelik (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected; can someone fix the grammar around this Livonia statement? "The tradition of decorating an evergreen tree at Christmas is claimed to have started in Livonia and Germany in the 16th century." The word "in" is missing, and it should be structured similar to how I did to avoid overuse of the word "in". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.177.25 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

tree forbidden until at least the 6th century

I figured this page would address that christians were forbidden from decorating with evergreens, wreaths and the like until at least the 6th century, because the trees were apparently still associated with old Roman Pagan traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.23.126 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin

The real history of the christmas tree and the history of the tradition should be documented better. Right now it is very skewed to be in favour of a christian perspective without any mention of previous religions and their beliefs/customs with regards to evergreen trees.

http://www.history.com/topics/history-of-christmas-trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootlegapparel1 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's about Christmas trees. I don't really believe that the worship of Ra, for instance, is relevant even though it's in the link. It isn't about evergreen trees in religion. Any sources would have to clearly make a link with Christmas trees. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Used as a Christian cross

Some churches however use Christmas trees as decoration at Christmas time. Others use the same stripped Christmas tree as a Christian cross at Easter.[citation needed]

I came across this passage while reading, and noticed that it needed citation. What, exactly, sort of citation is expected for this? This is actually a practice that my own church does (I am a member of the committee responsible for it, in fact), so I know that it is true and factual, but I assume that the word of Unregistered Joe Schmoe doesn't suffice, especially since I can't speak for any other church besides my own. ;) 173.49.33.160 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If your church publishes anything that describes the practice, you could use that publication as a reference. Does the church have a website that mentions the practice? If so, a link to that page would be a suitable reference. Or has the practice at your church been mentioned in a newspaper article or similar? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New Year's Tree

Revision as of 20:55, 21 December 2011 (edit) (undo)Dougweller (talk | contribs) (Reverted good faith edits by Idot (talk): If it isn't a Christmas tree then I can't see why it should be in this article. (TW))

if it looks like Cristmas Tree and used by orthodox christians as Cristmas Tree it is the Crismas Tree :-)
or do you mean that new year's tree should be in a separate article?
in Soviet Time the Cristmas Tree was renamed by atheists to New Year's Tree, so it is used in FSU by muslims (as well as by atheists and jews) for secular celebrations of New Year (Idot (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC))

Who calls it a Christmas tree? Find some reliable sources that link it to the Christmas tree - see WP:RS for the criteria for sources, and then we can add it. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Jews etc at times have Christmas trees and call them Christmas trees. As for the Russian New Year trees, they were banned after 1918 as looking too much like Christmas trees [12] so if that's right, you've got it the wrong way around and they seem to be separate things. The link comes from our article on the New Year Tree, which seems to have no sources that would be helpful. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion should be solved by adding to the caption a link to New Year tree (Idot (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps the listing of New Year tree under "See also" is enough. Esoglou (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Paydin added, but I've again removed a paragraph about Turkey's tree that is not a Christmas tree. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Evergreen coniferous

Resolved

The article's lead sentence says:

The Christmas tree is a decorated evergreen coniferous tree, real or artificial, ...

however I suggest that the words "evergreen" and "coniferous" are not appropriate here, because:

• It is meaningless to describe an artificial tree as evergreen.
• Artificial trees are not coniferous - they might be constructed to look like, but they are not Pinophyta.
• Although most real trees are coniferous (being pines or firs), they don't have to be. Eg "Adenanthos sericeus ... is commonly sold in southern Australia as a potted living Christmas tree." I'm not a botanist, but Adenanthos sericeus does not appear to be a conifer.

I suggest that the words "evergreen" and "coniferous" should be moved from their current location. My proposal:

The Christmas tree is a decorated evergreen coniferous tree,, real or artificial, traditionally associated with the celebration of Christmas. It is brought into the home and decorated [...] An angel or star may be placed at the top [...]

Most natural trees are evergreen conifers, such as pine or fir, because they do not lose their foliage in the northern hemisphere winter.

The earliest accounts of decorating an evergreen tree [...]

Thoughts anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you suggest not to use the words "evergreen" and "coniferous", why do you suggest to use the word "tree"? Yes, formally an artificial tree is not evergreen and coniferous, but it is not a tree too. Krasss (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if you're being serious, but assuming you are ...) WP:COMMONNAME applies. Would anybody seriously consider including the words "evergreen" or "conifer" in the article title? I think not. But I doubt anybody would object to the word "tree" in the title - because "Christmas tree" is what we typically call it. We may then qualify the description - artificial, natural, evergreen, coniferous, aluminium, feathered, fibre optic, upside down - as appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of a Christmas tree that appears not be an evergreen. (It doesn't look like a conifer either, but I'm not a botanist.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I have made the above-mentioned change. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A Christmas tree is a decorated coniferous tree. An artificial Christmas tree (which has its own article, and can be treated as WP:SS topic on this page) is a piece of plastic intended to look like such a tree. The entire point is still that you decorate an evergreen coniferous tree. If such trees are unavailable or impractical, people will use substitutions and still call them "Christmas tree", but this is clearly a secondary point. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Early evidence in guild celebrations

Re the poorly referenced Livonian stuff.

The article has long been aware that

The first evidence of decorated trees associated with Christmas Day is of the 16th century, with trees in guild halls decorated with sweets to be enjoyed by the apprentices and children. (A Bremen guild chronicle of 1570 reports that a small tree decorated with "apples, nuts, dates, pretzels and paper flowers" was erected in the guild-house for the benefit of the guild members' children, who collected the dainties on Christmas Day.)

This is based on secondary literature on the topic (Weber-Kellermann). On top of this, somebody has apparently added evidence that this custom extended to Livonia, and made an emphatic point that it "originated" there.

Customs of erecting a decorated trees in wintertime can be traced to 15th-century Livonia and 16th-century Northern Germany. In Estonia, in 1441, 1442, and 1514, the Brotherhood of Blackheads erected a tree for the holidays in their brotherhood house in Reval (now Tallinn). At the last night of the celebrations leading up to the holidays, the tree was taken to the Town Hall Square where the members of the brotherhood danced around it. In 1584, the pastor and chronicler Balthasar Russow in his Chronica der Provinz Lyfflandt (1584) wrote of an established tradition of setting up a decorated spruce at the market square where the young men "went with a flock of maidens and women, first sang and danced there and then set the tree aflame".

If this material is genuine, it is just additional information on the "originates in German guilds" topic. The Blackheads were North German merchants, just like their Bremen counterparts already mentioned. It would be relevant indeed if there is a reference to the 1440s (as opposed to the 1570 date for Bremen), but it doesn't change the basic outlook that the earliest Christmas trees were used in Christmas celebrations of North German merchant guilds.

But it is problematic to attribute all of this to a (near-)contemporary source (Russow 1584), when we have lots of modern monographs on the topic which apparently all fail to mention Russow.

In other words, this is a valuable lead, but at present it is not put into proper context or based on solid secondary sources. We need modern secondary literature on Christmas customs that discuss Russow and his Livonian evidence properly. If the 15th century dates are substantiated (which is perfectly possible), we will be able to say that the custom clearly predates the Reformation and its origins should probably be sought in the rise of the Hanseatic League. The conclusion that the custom was imported from the Baltic to Germany via these guilds is another matter yet again and would need explicit references. It would be exciting to have a discussion of this possibility, but we cannot make it up ourselves. Such an import of an ultimately native Baltic folk custom to late medieval Germany would fit the available pattern of evidence admirably. All the stuff surrounding Donars Oaks and Paradise trees does not explain the origin of the custom; it may illustrate with what prior concepts it would have been associated once it arose, but they clearly do not give rise to the trees used in these guilds, which in turn clearly gave rise to the bourgeois Christmas tree. In retrospect, people will of course attach anything relating to "evergreen" symbolism to the Christmas tree, so it is fine to discuss Donars Oaks and Paradise trees as long as it is not suggested that the bourgeois Christmas tree custom somehow arose from these directly. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Artificial Trees

I'm just curious where the "seventy percent of trees in the United States are artificial" statistic comes from? i'm suspicious of its accuracy, and there's no citation. thanks.

agree with the above, that number can't possibly be right. casual observation shows that although there is an increasing trend towards adopting artificial trees, the majority of people still strongly prefer the real thing to a fake thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.5.11 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Tree as a fire hazard?

Reports often indicate a significant number of fires occur each year as a result of Christmas trees. Perhaps there should be even a brief section in reference to that topic 50.101.166.241 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

this is especially true for candles... many homes have been destroyed by fires caused by holiday decorations, this article ought to include some mention of fire safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.5.11 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Percentage of artificial trees?

Our article does not list what percentage of Christmas trees these days are artificial, but I think it probably should. (I don't have a reference, but I'm sure one could be found.) Artificial Christmas tree#Sales and usage says a 2004 US poll indicated 58% artificial. Of course world-wide view view would be useful, because the US figure might not be typical. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the US figure is typical, and a large percentage of Christmas trees are artificial, I suggest that we should change the lead sentence back to "A Christmas tree is a decorated tree - real or artificial - ..." (and remove or reword the second sentence accordingly). Although a "tree" is normally the real thing (if not explicitly designate artificial), one could reasonably argue that a "Christmas tree" is not necessarily a real tree because (possibly, and/or at least in some countries/cultures) most (ie more than 50%) such trees are artificial and the language changes to match real-world usage. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th edition, 2007) defines "Christmas tree" as "an evergreen tree (usu. a Norway spruce) or artificial tree ... ". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would never talk about 'our artificial Christmas tree'. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Artificial trees are a very recent phenomena. For several hundred years people have been using real trees in their (christian based) celebrations. It is generally thought that the pagan traditions of celebrating the tree of life -- which the christian traditions deliberately supplanted, just as they did with Easter -- go back thousands of years. Just because the technology is changing does not justify putting a larger emphasis on artificial trees -- they are only an imitation of real tress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.5.11 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the 19th century "very recent". My point still stands, that:

• We should state approximately what percentage are artifical
• If that percentage is significant, we should reword to acknowledge that the term "Christmas tree" - in our modern society - might reasonably refer to an artificial tree.

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dates/Traditions of Putting up and Taking Down

This article implies that the majority of trees are put up on christmas eve because this is the traditional time to do it. While there may be some places where this is still true, and I do know a couple of people who actually do attempt to follow this practice, it is no longer the majority tradition anyplace in USA that I have been. I think that years ago this tradition was perhaps more widespread, but a simple look at the tree lots will show you that many of them are sold out long before christmas eve arrives. In general people start putting up their trees any time after thanksgiving is over and very few wait until christmas eve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.5.11 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrismon tree merge?

Is Chrismon tree notable enough to stand alone or should it merge in here? Chrismon tree seems like it is simply an over-decorated Christmas tree, promoted by those who sell the decorations.

The 1891 Viggo Johansen painting in the article already shows a tree with decorations, so it is not a 20th century idea to add ornaments. Hence at what point does a Christmas tree become a Chrismon tree? After N ornaments with N larger than ... ? The Chrismon tree seems to be a new name for a Christmas tree promoted by those who sell the ornaments.

Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Support the merge. A ntv (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A week has passed and seems like a good idea. In another day or two I will do it. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This Chrismon tree thing isn't popular enough to be mentioned in the Christmas tree article. If it has enough coverage to be notable for its own article, so be it, otherwise just delete it. Dream Focus 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is probably not worth an Afd.... let us wait for more votes, else let it be.... History2007 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the merge flag so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

clarification?

what is this lazy custom of tagging near-literal summaries of perfectly relevant and impeccably identified references with "clarification needed"?

In 1584, the pastor and chronicler Balthasar Russow in his Chronica der Provinz Lyfflandt (1584) wrote of an established tradition of setting up a decorated spruce at the market square where the young men "went with a flock of maidens and women, first sang and danced there and then set the tree aflame".[clarification needed]

what kind of clarification, pray, is needed for this? We are quoting a literal translation of what this guy wrote in 1584. You want "clarification"? Sorry, but this writer died 400 years ago. All we can do now is document whatever it is he had to say about proto-Christmas-trees of his time. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Upside-down Christmas Trees

The article currently states: "Upside-down artificial Christmas trees became popular for a short time and were originally introduced as a marketing gimmick; they allowed consumers to get closer to ornaments for sale in retail stores and opened up floor space for more products.[13]"

I wish to refer to these articles which state the ORIGINAL Christian Holiday tree was upside down. They were only flipped upright when the Germans took to decorating them with candles and ornaments. That being said, the original upside-down Christmas tree was not introduced as a recent marketing gimmick, and certainly not for 'consumers to get closer to ornaments'.

http://www.chiff.com/a/upside-down-christmas-trees.htm

http://www.christmasarchives.com/trees.html

~ 75.161.33.29 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"according to the TV channel History"

Is this really appropriate and notable narrative for the subject of this article? jrun (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

History

It seems reasonable to cite the Tree of Nines (a midwinter tree decorated with sacrificial ornaments) in the Scandinavian history section. See http://www.astro.uu.se/archast/Henriksson.pdf Richard Taytor (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest this page is deleted and a small notice about a Christmas tree is added to the Christmas page. Speling12345 (talk) 2:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I disagree. There is some duplication of wording between the two articles, but it would make more sense to trim down the references in Christmas and direct traffic to this page for those specifically interested in the detailed history of the tree custom. The traffic statistics (448204 in the last 30 days)suggest it's a reasonable number.RLamb (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I disagree too. Clearly there is a lot of information in this article that is not possible to add the Christmas page. As RLamb says there is some duplication of wording between the two articles, but as RLamb said it would make more sense to trim down the references in Christmas than to destroy this article. The traffic statistic not to be forgotten. Hafspajen (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC) By the way, Speling12345’s account was blocked for disruptive editing, so, the topic is of. It could have been useful to read certain pages like Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot; before starting useless discussion treads all over the place. Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Another tree

how about this one?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Christmas Tree

The picture is moved to article. Hafspajen (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tree in Rio de Janeiro

This one? Hafspajen (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the Christmas Tree in the Lagoa [Lagoon] Rodrigo de Freitas? It is 27 storeys high... I am sure it is worth mentioning?

Reverted edit saying "associated with Christmas traditions"

Partially because it read awkwardly, but also because Christmas is indeed a religious holiday/concept, but it is also a non-religious cultural holiday. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Some sources for early decorated trees found.

1. Further information on the Williamsburg, Virginia tree set up by German immigrant, Charles Minnigerode, found on the Colonial Williamsburg website:

• http://www.history.org/media/videoPlayer/index.cfm?sort=holidays - choose the "Christmas Trees" video, go to 1:16. That section shows and discusses how the tree displayed in the library of the St. George Tucker House at Colonial Williamsburg is created after the one Minnigerode initially set up, using gilded nuts, paper chains, candles, popcorn strings, and a paper star topper. The video narrator discusses that only was it the first Christmas tree to appear in Williamsburg, but how they believe that it was the first in Virginia as well.

• "Christmas Trees, the Confederacy, and Colonial Williamsburg" http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/christmas/hist_reverend.cfm - Further essay information on Minnigerode with a paragraph on the tree.

2. "A Christmas Essay" http://www.history.org/almanack/life/christmas/hist_rituals.cfm - More on the Minnigerode tree; how the tree arrived in Victorian England from Germany via Albert Saxe-Coburg Gotha (Prince Albert) - though an article appearing in the journal German History, assigns that tale to myth: "England and German Christmas Festlichkeit, c.1800–1914"; and an account of the German mythological legend of the first decorated tree to appear in Germany, the Tree of Humanity.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Page problems.

What specific objections does the tagging person have with the article not meeting WP standards? The issues are more easily addressed if we are told what they are. There seems to be quite a few areas of original research in the article as unsupported declarations are included. Authors, when you write, please cite as you go or ask for assistance.

I like looking at photos of decorated trees as much as anyone, but object to uncaptioned ones tossed in just because you can. Please caption the photos with an explanation of what point they are meant to illustrate from the article. It also seems like the article has a strong element of the photo gallery. Also check that policy page about the use of animated GIFs. Is every example of the many 1000s of ornaments created eventually going to be posted? If so, we'll need a lot more bandwidth. B^) The policy page covers this, too.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a Christmas ornament article. Perhaps you can offload most of those photos over there as the more proper place for them? Or just not use all of them at all. Why congest that page, too? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• You seems to have about 1450 edits since 23 September 2009, and there are thing that happen on Wikipedia, in the meanwhile. Things have changed since 2006. Galleries are not discouraged nowadays The section you direct is about images. It say: images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. The images we have DO add the reader's understanding of the subject. Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

About

Galleries. Galleries are not discouraged nowadays. Hafspajen (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think galleries are appropriate for many articles as long as the images are properly sized and arranged. CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Origin

Hi, I would like to add to the origin of bringing evergreen trees indoors and its relation to the celebration of Christmas. The origins of evergreen trees indoors and the celebrations of Christmas can/may be traced back to the Saturnalia, a Roman Pre-Christian agricultural festival that was celebrated as the winter solstice approached and the plants died. The Pre-Christian Romans would bring evergreen trees into the house as an act of sympathetic magic intended to guard the life essence of the plants until spring.

The fact that plants die as winter solstice approaches in the Roman Empire, should be self explanatory. The sympathetic magic intended to guard the life essence of the plants until spring, can also be found in other cultures according to the following source: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115737/Christmas-tree that states, "the use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews". How they managed to miss the Romans Saturnalia in relation to this is beyond me, since the practice was also a part of the Saturnalia festival/tradition. The connection to Christmas should be self explanatory.

How would this fit in the article?Anders1985 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be quite fine, but remember to add a reference or two. Hafspajen (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC),

I have read in a few sources that the christmas tree is/was also a phallic symbol, representing the creative, regenerative energy of the sun as it makes its way back to its apex after the solstice has passed...unfortunately i am not at a place where i have access to said sources, sorry :( 208.234.106.253 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)anon

The Origin II

The wiki-site of Fanny von Arnstein says: "In 1814, Fanny von Arnstein introduced a new custom from Berlin, hitherto unknown in Vienna: the Christmas tree." And the link goes to this site here. But there we read that "Princess Henrietta of Nassau-Weilburg introduced the Christmas tree to Vienna in 1816"...so we have to improve the article...Susanne Wosnitzka (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)