Talk:Christmas

Saturnalia, Yule, and other pre-Christian winter celebrations

While the article on Christmas provides useful information, the omission or lack of emphasis on the pagan roots and the historical evolution of imagery could result in a perspective that favors the Christian narrative disproportionately. To fully meet the NPOV policy, the article should present a more comprehensive overview of all the historical, cultural, and religious influences that have shaped Christmas. This would help ensure a balanced presentation that reflects the multifaceted history of the holiday. 2620:0:E00:553A:5501:1B4E:14C6:226C (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of material was moved to Date of the birth of Jesus in December 2023. There is a lot of speculation, though, and the reliability of some of the sources is challenged. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The article's main purpose is about Christmas as a celebration rather than focusing on perspectives of it's origins. I agree that there should be some mention of the many influences on Christmas but the issue is that there is no scholarly consensus on the magnitude of pagan influence in contrast to Christian or secular influence. For instance, the origin of Christmas symbolism is constantly fluctuating with theories that certain items are pagan because paganism employed natural symbols in its rituals, whereas other sources point out that specific Christmas items like the Christmas Tree did not exist until Germanic Christians, or churches, utilized a unique combination. For instance, pagans did decorate outdoor trees with fruits and nuts, but they did not bring pine trees inside and decorated them with candles while simultaneously applying Christian meaning. This is where people enter a gray area of attributing a Christmas item based on similarity rather than providing strong support that it is undeniably derived from pagan traditions. Similarly, wreaths were used on heads by many different pagan cultures, they signified life cycles tied to pagan symbolism but advent candles on wreaths and specific Christian symbolism tied to the "light of Christ" or the meaning of evergreens with "everlasting life" are not pagan in origin. There are many other wiki articles focusing on the details of debates and discussions surrounding Christmas. Ranging from nativity, to the the biblical accounts of Jesus, etc. I do not see how one can outright claim pagan roots without inadvertly blanketing things that have no pagan origin. Similarly, is Santa Claus secular because of the commercialization of Saint Nicholas? Are reindeer pagan because of similarities with nordic deities, or secular because of stories like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer? In essence these topics do not have a unanimous conclusion. ChaoticTexan (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that others have tried to address the topic of Mithraism and its interpretation in relation to Christmas before me, but their efforts were blocked.

Thank you for your input. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, articles should present information in a neutral and balanced manner, especially when there is no scholarly consensus on a topic. In cases of differing views, such as the origins of Christmas, it is important to present all notable perspectives, provided they are supported by reliable sources. The goal is to avoid promoting one view over others and to ensure that all significant perspectives are presented fairly.

When addressing topics like the potential pagan origins of Christmas symbols, it is essential to reference sources that represent a range of views, from those that suggest strong pagan influences to those that argue for a more Christian or secular development. Any claims made should be backed by credible scholarly sources, and the article should make clear where there is debate or uncertainty.

In line with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, statements such as "Christmas items have pagan origins" should be carefully framed to reflect the complexity of the issue and the lack of consensus, as some sources argue that certain traditions have Christian or secular roots. In cases where there is significant debate, it is necessary to acknowledge the lack of unanimous conclusions and to present these views in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy.

In short, while it is valuable to explore the various influences on Christmas, it is also important to accurately represent the ongoing scholarly discussions and the diversity of interpretations that exist. تیران (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Was just coming on here to read about the origins of Christmas and seen it said "It is specific to Christianity" and was confused because we all know it's not 90.250.186.134 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas and family life

2 point about Christmas and family life 105.112.209.218 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2024

Please insert where appropriate, which appears to be near the beginning of the Christmas WIKI:

Etymologically CHRISTMAS means "Christ sent" (<Latin misse.) The Anointed one, the Savior, has been sent, has arrived. French Noël, variant of Naël, means birth of God. Spanish Navidad means The Birth. The Philippines are even more astute; they refer to both The Birth and The Passover as Pasko. The Great Passover began in Bethlehem, it was finished on the cross. Jonbsevy (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Jonathan Sevy

 Not done: This does not appear to be written in an encylopedic style. PianoDan (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Modern Christmas Traditions Around the World

"I noticed that while the article covers traditional Christmas customs, it doesn't include modern traditions that have emerged in recent years. For example, Japan has a unique tradition of eating KFC chicken on Christmas. Should we add a short section or expand on modern cultural practices from different regions? I can provide reliable sources for these examples." JohnsonWiki2 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed dubious claim from article

Mistletoe has sticky white berries, one of which was traditionally removed whenever someone was kissed under it. This is probably a fertility ritual. The mistletoe berry juice resembles semen.

Dubious claim, not in the source, and it would need a better citation anyway. The mistletoe I know has red berries, but I'm fine to cite no/weak source for that and the removal ritual if other folks here have heard of that being a thing (for the time being). Abeg92contribs 06:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

Christmas was never originally a Christian celebration, and the bible states jesus was born in summer around June/July time. I want a request to edit this page as majority of this information is factually incorrect and is spreading misinformation to those that may use this for educational purposes. 2A00:23C7:D982:3301:FCCB:379A:D96B:399E (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. cyberdog958^Talk 10:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, some scholars made an argument that Jesus was born in a warmer season, but the matter is not settled. E.g. the birth narratives seem to be unhistorical, so there is no reason to trust their details. Anyway, major denominations do not claim that Jesus was born on 25 December, just that that's the religious celebration of his birth. "But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth." [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Robert Sinker. "Christmas and the Nativity of Mithras". Retrieved 2024-12-25. تیران (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The connection between Christmas and Mithraism

Hello,Anupam^Talk

I believe the removal of this passage undermines the article’s context. Scholars argue that Western Christianity, including aspects of the church calendar and festivals like Christmas, was influenced by pre-Christian Roman religions, particularly Mithraism. Christmas, originally a celebration of Mithras, was later adopted as Christ’s birthdate under Constantine. This historical context is essential for understanding the evolution of Christmas.

I suggest reinstating this information to provide a more comprehensive view of the holiday’s origins.

I agree that the topic should be explored in more detail in the 'Early Christianity' article, but in the context of the Christmas article, the mention I added is a brief yet valuable reference. It provides useful historical context about the origins of Christmas and its connections to pre-Christian Roman traditions. Including this short reference helps readers understand the holiday's evolution without detracting from the main focus of the article. تیران (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Some scholars argue that Western Christianity owes much of its foundational structure, which provided the religion with stability and form, to pre-Christian Roman religions, including Mithraism. For example, many aspects of the church calendar, as well as remnants of pre-Christian rituals and festivals—particularly Christmas—have been preserved within Christianity. Christmas, originally a celebration of the birth of Mithras, (The longest night of the year or Yalda) the god of light and the sun in ancient Rome, was adopted in the 4th century AD, with the official establishment of Christianity by Emperor Constantine, as the official birthdate of Christ. تیران (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

User:تیران, my thoughts are that the information you added is WP:UNDUE for the scope of this article. Mithraism being a putative origin of Christianity is tangential and not germane to the topic. If some of the information on December 25 being chosen as the birthdate of Jesus were to be added to this article, it properly belongs in the "Choice of Date" section. WP:CONSENSUS takes time to develop and at this point, I would invite other editors to comment here to share their perspectives. Anupam^Talk 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to incorporate material that has origins in the disproven Zeitgeist movie. That is where the Mithraic claims stem from. Mike Winger does a decent job covering this in his video.[2] NishantXavier (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

تیران (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you preventing me from editing and saying that the text I wrote, claiming that Christmas is the birth of the Sun God Mithra and not Jesus, is unacceptable?

The text also mentions that no liturgical historian goes so far as to deny any connection to the sun and the winter solstice, let alone neutral scholars whom I have cited, some of whom explicitly believe that Christmas celebrates the birth of Mithra.

On the other hand, instead of placing this material in the historical section, it has been put in a section called 'theories' to discredit it as much as possible.

In my opinion, this behavior is unfair and seems to be motivated solely by religious reasons تیران (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have cited serious and diverse sources for the text I added. The topic of the connection between the birth of Mithraism in early winter and Christmas celebrations is a viewpoint that has been debated for centuries and continues to be discussed. If we are not allowed to add this topic to Wikipedia, I can confidently say that we are essentially censoring it. I respectfully ask for the inclusion of this topic, as it represents an important historical and scholarly discussion that should be presented in a balanced and neutral manner, in line with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and comprehensive coverage. تیران (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:RS. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The Theory Linking Christmas and Mithraism is a Valid and Documented Perspective

The connection between Christmas and Mithraism has been studied by numerous scholars and has been discussed in credible academic sources. This theory is based on historical evidence and comparative research on ancient religious practices and their cultural-religious influence in the Roman Empire. For example, the celebration of the "Birth of the Unconquered Sun" (Sol Invictus), associated with Mithraic traditions, occurred on December 25 and later overlapped with the celebration of Christmas in Christianity.

According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy (WP:NPOV), all theories and viewpoints presented in reliable sources must be represented fairly and without bias. The label "fringe theory" can only be applied when a theory is rejected by the majority of scholars and lacks support from credible sources. In this case, numerous academic sources have explored and supported this connection.

Based on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Policy (WP:RS), any theory discussed in credible academic works or books published by reputable academic publishers is considered valid for citation. Therefore, this theory cannot be arbitrarily labeled as fringe.

The claim that the connection between Christmas and Roman Mithraism is a fringe theory has only been made by religiously biased scholars, not by academic researchers. For centuries, this topic has been a central and ongoing discussion in the study of Christianity and remains so to this day. تیران (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You haven't supplied any evidence to support your contention that the Mihtraism connection is not a fringe theory (your first source is paper published in 1904 by "Reverend Robert Sinker" - your Brittanica references don't draw any connection between the two, and the other reference is a book review). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"I referenced older sources, especially to demonstrate that this is a well-rooted and important theory, and showed that your claims are baseless. Of course, I try to mention newer sources as well, although I have honestly and impartially stated in the text, according to Wikipedia’s guidelines, that in recent times, especially through the efforts of religious scholars, much has been done to marginalize the view that Christmas' birth is actually the birth of the god Mithras, and today this view is discussed less. These perspectives should be examined in Wikipedia articles based on credible sources and documentation to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and sourcing." تیران (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The "heritageinstitute.com" clearly does not meet WP:RS guidlines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

SThe book Christmas and the Nativity of Mithras by Luther H. Martin is a reliable scholarly source, authored by one of the leading researchers in the field of the history of religions and studies related to Mithraism. Luther H. Martin has published numerous articles in reputable academic journals and is widely recognized as a respected scholar in this area.

According to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), any source authored by a subject matter expert and published by credible publishers is considered citable. Opposing the use of this book in Wikipedia articles is unfounded and contradicts the Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy and the criteria for reliable sources.

This book provides valuable insights into the connections between the celebration of Christmas and elements of Mithraism. Removing or rejecting this source without scientific justification is an attempt to distort information or ignore historical data. Therefore, citing this source is entirely valid and aligns with Wikipedia's content standards. تیران (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim is from the movie Zeitgeist, which is a fabricated concoction. "Horus Ruins Christmas" has made its rounds on the internet debunking such absurdities.[3] NishantXavier (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly do not know why you are taking that person seriously, when all of their input on this talk page has been prompted out of a LLM Falredth (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what is currently prevailing on Wikipedia; valid viewpoints and sources are rejected, and irrelevant reasons are cited for their dismissal, while the scientific standards and neutrality that Wikipedia claims are completely ignored.

On Wikipedia, policies emphasize that discussions should be based on content and evidence, not assumptions about sources or authors. Discrediting opinions solely because they may have been generated using a large language model (LLM), without evaluating the content, could contradict these principles. تیران (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:تیران, you are wasting everyone’s time here, as becomes apparent very quickly to anyone looking at your five sources listed in the References subsection, below. LLMs do not understand sources. Taking them one by one:

1. The linked article is not, as you assert, by Luther H. Martin, 2006. It is by The Rev. Robert Sinker, and is extracted from A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 1875. Whatever the Rev. Sinker’s opinions were in 1875, they don’t merit inclusion in this article
2. A list of 7 popular factoids that simply says (and I quote) “Old solstice traditions have influenced holidays we celebrate now, such as Christmas and Hanukkah”
3. A Britannica page that doesn’t mention Christmas at all
4. A third party review of a 1987 book. You don’t appear to be aware that the book, in German, is available online
5. The pdf comes from https://www.heritageinstitute.com, a commercial organisation “working in the field of corporate governance and human relations for over 30 years”. Not a reliable source of academic history.

Please drop this. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have referenced another work by this renowned and highly respected scholar in the field of Mithraic studies. His book remains one of the best sources for understanding the Mithraic mysteries. On page 196, he explicitly discusses the borrowing of Christmas celebrations from the Mithraic tradition. Please do not hinder the dissemination of credible and well-sourced material, and kindly respect Wikipedia's guidelines

تیران (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MichaelMaggs The way you are speaking seems offensive, or at least, unlike everyone else involved in this discussion, it lacks good intentions. Please be careful with your words, as this kind of behavior could violate Wikipedia's guidelines تیران (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of the issues I raised. Would you care to do so? MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on the main topic and avoid digressions. I have referred to another credible source under reference number 6. Kindly respect Wikipedia's guidelines and do not censor it. تیران (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to address any of the WP policy-based counterpoints other editors have raised, bizarrely (and falsely) claiming they are "digressions", does not help your position. Thus far, you have not convinced a single editor of your position. You must address those points, rather than trying to avoid them, if you want to convince anyone. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The individuals who participated in the discussion raised objections to the sources I provided and requested a more credible new source. Therefore, I referred to the new source mentioned in number six, which is completely convincing and fully supports my statements.

Franz Cumont, one of the greatest and most important scholars of Mithraism, whose book is still considered one of the authoritative sources for understanding this tradition, clearly refers to the borrowing of Christmas from Mithraism on page 196 of his book The Mysteries of Mithras. Preventing the mention of this topic in the article violate Wikipedia's guidelines.

According to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, Wikipedia is required to present all significant viewpoints without bias. Removing documented and reliable information, especially when it comes from reputable scholarly sources, violates this principle. Additionally, under the Reliable Sources policy, information based on credible and published sources by prominent researchers must be included in articles.

If this source does not convince you and others, it can only be attributed to religious or cultural biases, which should not influence decision-making. تیران (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS. Namely it is a 19th century book. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This book was written at the beginning of the 20th century. According to Wikipedia's principles of "Reliable Sources" (WP:RS) and "Neutral Point of View" (WP:NPOV), the views of individuals recognized as "notable figures" in a specific field should be included in articles. This means that if someone is considered a primary authority or founder in a scientific field and has published significant scholarly works in that area, their views and research should be incorporated into the relevant articles.

In the case of Franz Cumont, he is recognized as one of the greatest and most respected scholars in the field of Mithraism, and his works remain primary sources in this area. The Wikipedia article about him also clearly mentions that he is a highly respected figure in the field of Mithraism studies. According to these principles, his views should be included in articles related to Mithraism and its influence on other cultures, including Christmas. This helps maintain the neutrality and credibility of the article and prevents the omission or dismissal of reliable sources. تیران (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering and ignorance: the year 1900 (when the book was published in French) is in the 19th century. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

So, it is now the 20th century.

Dear friend, the author of The Mysteries of Mithras founded the field of Mithraic studies. I can reference dozens of highly credible articles that mention this topic. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, his opinion should be included in the article. تیران (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

it is now the 20th century—I don't understand what you are saying. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to you that your understanding of the centuries is incorrect. I suggest you study more about how centuries are numbered. However, this is not a very important issue.

I would prefer to focus more on the fact that, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, the views of prominent individuals in a subject should be included in Wikipedia articles. The author of The Mysteries of Mithras, Franz Cumont, is the founder of research on Mithraism, so there is no doubt that he is a prominent figure in this field. This book was written in 1903 and is still one of the most important and authoritative sources in Mithraic studies. If you need a source to back up this claim, let me know, and I can provide several sources from contemporary historians who consider him a very important authority in this field. تیران (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, buddy, you are misinformed. Cumont's book wasn't written in the 20th century because it already got published in the 19th century. Your understanding of chronology is severely limited. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Source: https://www.ugentmemorie.be/personen/cumont-franz-1868-1947 tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The centuries are divided as follows:

19th century: Covers the years 1801 to 1900 AD.

20th century: Covers the years 1901 to 2000 AD.

21st century: Covers the years 2001 to 2100 AD.

The book in question was written in 1903 AD, which places it in the 20th century.

تیران (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The book was published in 1900. The abridged translation was published in 1903. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, this issue is a side topic. The book I referred to was published in 1903, as I mentioned earlier. I prefer to focus on the fact that the author of this book, Franz Cumont, established the field of Mithraism studies, and his contribution to this field is very important. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, his views should be included in the article, and resistance to this could be contrary to Wikipedia's policies. تیران (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, the germane WP:PAG is WP:AGEMATTERS. You cannot dodge it. Bring mainstream WP:RS written in the past 20 years. You cannot WP:ASSERT a fact based only upon 19th century WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, according to two main principles, it is acceptable to reference someone who established a scientific field, regardless of the age of their work:

1. The "Notability" Rule (WP:Notability): If a person is notable in a specific field, their views should be included in relevant articles. Franz Cumont, the founder of Mithraism studies, is a notable figure in this field.

2. The "Reliable Sources" Rule (WP:RS): Credible scholarly sources, even if old, are acceptable for reference. Since Cumont is still regarded as a primary authority in Mithraism studies, his views should be included in the article.

Therefore, his opinions should be referenced in related articles. تیران (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You do not make our WP:RULES. You have to obey our WP:RULES like anyone else.

Failing to provide recent WP:RS makes it obvious that his claim got no traction for more than hundred years.

While it could have been a Mithraic celebration (according a to 19th century scholar), Mithraism was a mystery religion, so its celebrations were not public. So, if it were a Mithraic celebration, it could not have been a popular celebration. So, then the Roman Emperor would have not seen fit to impose it as the date of the Christmas. Since the reasoning behind that was that such decision was adopted in order to appease the Pagan masses. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I now believe that you have the necessary good intentions, however, the text you wrote is by no means neutral.

Even now, many articles are being written about the connection between Christmas and Mithraism.

For example, I will provide the link to one of them here:

https://biblioscout.net/book/10.25162/9783515132008 تیران (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the mystery cults were highly selective as membership, but they held secret ceremonies. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The indicated book, p. 38: Christmas linked to Sol Invictus, not Mithra. Further no significant mention of Christmas in the whole book. And Sol Invictus is already mentioned in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"My friend, this source is relevant, but there are many other sources as well. I am providing you with the seventh source, which explicitly links Christmas with the birth of Mithras in the last paragraph on page 133. The publication year of this book is 2000."

تیران (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

تیران: Who is this “Mallory, J. P.”, who you say is the author of your reference 7? And why do you mis-state the publication date as 2000 ? The actual author, Duncan. K Malloch, has no relevant academic credentials that I can find, and the book appears to be self-published, the publisher’s website being merely a contact page for the book.

Let me summarise your approach so far:

• (1) Remove with no explanation well-sourced recent scholarship that’s inconsistent with the idea you want to get into to the Christmas article;
• (2) Six minutes later, insert outrageously sweeping statements about the relevance of Mithraism, including that Christmas was “originally a celebration of the birth of Mithras”, your source being a short Britannica article that mentions neither Christmas nor Mithras;
• (3) When reverted, quickly switch to a reliance on several new references – one falsely attributed, one that doesn’t mention Mithras, an irrelevant book review, and something from a corporate governance/human relations organisation;
• (4) when challenged, refuse (twice) to discuss why you considered any of those to be even remotely relevant;
• (5) introduce yet another document by a 19th century scholar who doesn’t provide support as he merely links Sol Invictus (not the birth of Mithra) to Christmas, re-iterating the well-known History of religions hypothesis which is already well covered in Date_of_the_birth_of_Jesus;
• (6) When challenged, once again drop that discussion, and switch reliance to yet another source, this time a misidentified self-published book;
• (7) State that there are many more sources, presumably intending to continue along the same lines.

All the while, you have been constantly hectoring editors with apparently AI-generated oddly-unfocused exhortations to follow policy and guidelines. Your inability to understand sources, or even to identify what it is you purport to rely on, convinces me that these are not viable sources that you have thought about, but simply AI suggestions. Your response when challenged on your talk page, was simply to say “I did not admit to being wrong”, quickly changed to “I did not admit to anything”. I don’t know whether this is a WP:COMPETENCE or a WP:GREATWRONGS issue, but in either case you have wasted too much time and worn out at least my patience, and probably that of many of the editors here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend, my goal is simply to address your objections. You claimed that Franz Cumont is outdated and his views are not credible. However, I sent you a new book in which the first chapter is dedicated to Franz Cumont's views on Mithraism. This refutes your claim regarding the unreliability of (source number six).

https://biblioscout.net/book/10.25162/9783515132008 Nevertheless, I also added a seventh source to make my argument even stronger, yet you still keep making excuses. تیران (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My final point is to reference sources six and seven, along with a link to a book that highlights the continued relevance of the author of source six in modern times. Thank you for your patience. While I believe you have good intentions, I still hope you will further set aside cultural or religious biases. تیران (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

References

Date changes

Hi Rodney Baggins, 57birdnerd, McRandy1958, Tronno, TrademarkedTWOrantula, Remsense, Anupam, Danishdeutsch, StephenMacky1, CyberTheTiger, Jonesey95, Pigsonthewing, Richard Yin, BabelStone, Toasted Meter, MSLQr

Could you all check this article again to make sure your edits are all there please?, I did some date changes yesterday[4] but unbeknown to me it ended up removing content too - I believe I've reinstated all of your edits back but I need to go and wanted to make sure everything is back as it should be (if it's not you're more than welcome to readd this back or I can add your edits back later on tonight)

I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for this mess up and for having to drag you all back here, Lesson learnt here fwiw but again so sorry, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry; I haven't made any major edits, and I've already reinstated them. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant @TrademarkedTWOrantula thanks so much for doing this it's greatly appreciated,

I should explain to everyone the only reason these were changed from MDY to DMY is because I misclicked and hadn't realised, As I said lessons have certainly been learned going forward, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

My edit wasn't major (and I didn't even have to reinstate it), but I did clean up another broken ref after you said something!

Universe just had to even it out, I guess. 57birdnerd (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)