Talk:Xmas

History question
Is it possible that the Xmas is actually result of phonetic similarity? Christ-mas sounds alike Criss-mas, and X being taken as sign for criss from the criss-cross game? I don't fint it convincing that X is taken from some old symbol. Why that symbol and, even more imnportant, why only recently? ''-- 17:04, 25 December 2006 83.131.199.65''


 * You may find these symbols obscure, but they were extremely important in the Christianity of late antiquity and the middle ages (see Labarum, Christogram, etc.). Furthermore, the OED traces "Xmas" back to 1755, "Xstmas" back to 1799, and "X'temmas" back to 1551, so I'm not sure what you mean by "recent". AnonMoos 20:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek for Christ?
"Christos, which is Greek for Christ"

Well, no. Christ is English for Christos. Perhaps that should be changed to something like "Christos, the Greek original that gives us Christ in English". Or am I being just a little too pedantic? --Patrick T. Wynne 08:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Greek words Christé mas which mean "Our Christ" are at the origin of the word Christmas. And, consequently, also for Xmas, which is the Latin transliteration of the Greek abbreviation Ch(risté) mas or Χ(ριστε) μας. I'm going ahead with the appropriate amendment.
 * The current entry for Xmas also claims that "Greek is the language in which the whole New Testament was written". (Greek was the lingua franca of the period.)This is probably correct, but it is still being disputed - as the relevant wikipedia entry itself for the Bible states! I.e. "The New Testament is widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, although some scholars hypothesize that certain books (whether completely or partially) may have been written in Aramaic before being translated for widespread dissemination. One very famous example of this is the opening to the Gospel of John, which is argued to be, perhaps, a Greek translation of an Aramaic hymn."
 * The Gnome 14:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There are all kinds of theories and speculations about the Bible, so that is not reason enough to change a Wikipedia entry like this. Greek is the only language to be found in the original manuscripts, and Greek is the best language for understanding the Bible. And, are you sure that it is a Latin transliteration? People have known Greek in the Latin world for a long time (it was the language spoken by the common people in Rome before Latin), so isn't it possible they were simply using the Greek letters 'Chi' and 'Rho'? It is modern man who has neglected Greek (and Latin). poopsix 09:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than Christ being English for Christos or Christos being Greek for Christ, isn't Christos the Greek translation of the Hebrew word that is translated as Messiah in English? Said translation having been made in the Septuagint?

Also... does anyone know modern or (anything about the pronounciation of) biblical Greek? I am suspicious that the person who wrote This apparent usage of "X" to spell the syllable "kris" (rather than the sounds "ks") is saying that based upon a knowledge of Russian rather than Greek, because in Russian the Cyrillic glyph that corresponds to Greek Chi is pronouced "ks". I always thought it made a sound like the English 'k' in Greek, but maybe I think that only because of the math classes I've taken.Struthious Bandersnatch 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Labarum
Labarum whould be a great addition to the article. --Abdull 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Xmas or X'mas
Could someone tell me which is most correct and most common?

Regards,

Matthew Vetrini -- 03:18, 28 January 2006


 * Xmas is more common. It's hard to see why X'mas would be considered more "correct", since there's no real contraction in the ordinary sense -- rather the "X" stands for all of the letters C-h-r-i-s-t. AnonMoos 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

X-mas is also very common in the United States, especially as an abbreviation for signs outside of stores. I don't know about other countries. poopsix 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2017
It can be X-mas, Xmas and X'mas. But I think X-mas is the most common. DiamondDudu (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Weasely language removed
I've removed the following passages from the article, and was reverted, citing a need for clarification.

"As origins of the word go largely unnoticed by the larger public, many people believe that the term is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is also seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas or a vehicle for pushing political correctness, or as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). This notion is greatly disputed."

I removed this because there are no citations indicating:
 * 1) The origins of the word go largely unnoticed
 * 2) Many people believe the term is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas"
 * 3) Anyone believes it's a symptom of commercialization
 * 4) Any of these notions are "greatly disputed".

I've also removed:

"The occasionally seen belief that the "X" represents the cross Christ was crucified on has no basis in fact; St Andrew's Cross is X-shaped, but Christ's cross was probably shaped like a T or a †. Indeed, X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be. (The Greek letter Chi Χ stood for "Christ"  in the ancient Greek acrostic ΙΧΘΥΣ ichthys.)  While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs. The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. "Kings X" for "Kings Cross") may have reinforced this assumption."

Because there are no citations indicating that anyone holds the belief that the X represents the cross. Without that assertion, the information about St. Andrew's Cross becomes irrelevant. The next two sentences are pure speculation, especially the first one: "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs"? This is a completely unverified fluff statement. JDoorj a m    Talk 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, some do see it as a threat, but they don't know Greek. This is a claim that is hard to cite, because it is some peoples' opinion, and that opinion is not shared by all, and so is not often found in easily citably sources. poopsix 09:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive major surgery
If you don't like this article, why don't you attempt to improve it, instead of just hacking away large chunks of it with a chainsaw? Dealing with specific points might be constructive, but just deleting whatever you don't like does nothing to improve the article in any specific way. AnonMoos 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to improve it, by demanding we provide citations. Do you have citations for any of the points I've raised?  policy says we need 'em for those passages to be in the article. JDoorj a m     Talk 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's how those passages currently stand, citation-wise:


 * "As origins of the word go largely unnoticed by the larger public, many people believe that the term is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is also seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas or a vehicle for pushing political correctness{[fact}}, or as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers). This notion is greatly disputed.


 * "The occasionally seen belief that the "X" represents the cross Christ was crucified on has no basis in fact; St Andrew's Cross is X-shaped, but Christ's cross was probably shaped like a T or a †. Indeed, X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be. (The Greek letter Chi &#935; stood for "Christ"  in the ancient Greek acrostic &#921;&#935;&#920;&#933;&#931; ichthys.)  While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat, others see it as a way to honor the martyrs.
 * The use of X as an abbreviation for "cross" in modern abbreviated writing (e.g. "Kings X" for "Kings Cross") may have reinforced this assumption."


 * We need to clean that up. Again, can you provide sources for any of this?  If not, it shouldn't be in the article.  JDoorj a m     Talk 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

"I am attempting to improve it, by demanding we provide citations. Do you have citations for any of the points I've raised?"

Maybe he does. But by excising the entire passage, you've made it impossible for him to provide them. The proper way to "demand we provide citations" is to insert "citation needed" tags, then raise the points on the discussion page -- Unilaterally lopping off the entire section without discussion is a bit heavy-handed.

As you can see, many of the points have now been sourced.

CNJECulver (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional info
There's some additional info currently at Secularization_of_Christmas ... AnonMoos 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or Christmas controversy (those articles seem to merge and split and change names so often, I'm not sure if that's the same article or not...) AnonMoos 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity of usage of X for Christ
The article uses the Anglo-Saxon chronicle as an example of early usage of "X" for "Christ", bu his can be pushed back farther. The Irish Gospel Books (Book of Durrow, Book of Kells, etc) all used "Xp" as an abreviation when it apears as the first word in the Latin translation of Matthew 1:18. We have images of Durrow (here) and Kells (here). Durrow dates to the 7th century and Kells to about 800. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xritos

Q: why is the word Christmas Abbreviated as Xmas A: "Because the Greek letter x is the first letter of the greek word for Christ,Xristos. The word Xmas meaning 'Christ's Mass', was commonly used in Europe by the 16th century. Itwas not an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas."(From The Book of Answers, By Barbara Berliner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.239.76 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Major Citation Problems
My opinion on the article as a whole in to be determined, as I haven't researched it thoroughly, and it's not very important to me, personally. But the fact remains that the authenticity is highly unlikely to most readers who do background checks. Two of the references that essentially make or break the facts in this article are, unfortunately, unreliable at best. Besides that fact that I received a 404 error each time I attempted to view this particular page, the domain itself is not reliable either. Simply from its domain (.net), any information from the site is a moot point at best. This just makes me sick. I love Wikipedia as a whole, and I'm constantly telling off people who generalize all Wikipedia articles as false with the totally unfounded complaint of "Anyone can go on there and type in anything they want!" Quite obviously, that is incorrect. Many events and persons of historic importance are protected in one way or another. But when anything has extreme amounts of attention brought to it, most people either turn to Wikipedia or wind up here. And whether or not the readers believe this, having such a pathetic "source" only gives that complaint more room to procreate. In short, that website (1) is a wide collaboration between strangers, (2) should not ever be considered as fact, (3) is a horrific mutilation of the purpose of The Wikipedia Project, especially considering that the complaint about Wikipedia is actually correct when applied to what someone has listed as an information source. Ryojo (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://christiansymbols.net/chi_rho_page.htm
 * http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=13693&lastnode_id=0

Education decline?
I think the previous universality of Latin and Greek is a little idealized -- even by 1917, there were already complaints that the study of ancient Greek was fast-disappearing from the curriculum of U.S. high schools (see the Preface to "First Year of Greek" by James Turney Allen), and I doubt whether even then Latin was an absolute requirement in all cases for those who wanted to attend college... Furthermore, knowledge of Latin without any knowledge of Greek would provide very little insight into "Xmas", so Latin would appear to be mostly irrelevant. And is there any evidence for "Chimas"? Also, pronunciations should generally be given in IPA, and the most accepted pronunciation of the Greek letter Chi in modern English is actually [kai]... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"erroneously"
The bit where it says:


 * Today, with knowledge of classical languages being less widespread than formerly, some erroneously believe that the term Xmas is part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ"; it is seen as evidence of the secularization of Christmas, as a symptom of the commercialization of the holiday (as the abbreviation has long been used by retailers).

It is possibly biased to use the word "erroneously" here, as you could argue an opposing view, that precisely because the knowledge of classical languages is now less widespread, using the term Xmas is indeed essentially removing the "Christ" part in most people's understanding, even if this would not have been so in previous times. It is therefore entirely plausible that people would indeed use the abbreviation as an intentional secularization, either because they themselves don't understand the etymology or because they think that their audience largely won't. Weedier Mickey (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but it is clearly factually true that such was NOT the original intention or purpose of such abbreviation practices... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd go with the OP here. Even if one demonstrates that it was not the original intent of the abbreviation, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's not so employed today. Those who see it as part of the secularization of Christmas may, in fact, be correct, the origins of the abbreviation notwithstanding. In fact, I've been so bold as to go ahead and revise the sentence myself. CNJECulver (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- It's simply an objective attested evidence-supported fact accepted in the consensus of mainstream scholarship on the subject that ancient religious monograms and Christograms were NOT originally "devised as part of an effort to "take Christ out of Christmas" or to literally "cross out Christ", and I see no reason whatsoever why we're not allowed to report that very solid fact in this article... If you believe in something which is objectively and factually demonstrably false, then your belief is erroneous.  AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Likely. However, you're final sentence is not presenting a fact, it's drawing a conclusion.


 * We're actually dealing with two separate assertions: Assertion 1. The X in Xmas is religious in origin. Assertion 2. Xmas is today being used as part of a campaign to secularize Christmas. You seem to want to argue that the two are somehow mutually exclusive -- that by proving the first you have somehow disproved the second, quod erat demonstrandum, without the bother of demonstrating how. Please do so.


 * Since my revision did little more than remove the word "erroneously" (without touching on origins), I will assume that is where you're real objection lies. I removed the word for two reasons: first, as I have already demonstrated, Assertion 1 is not ipso facto exclusive of Assertion 2 (id est, that Assertion 1 is true does not make Assertion 2 erroneous); and second, it is a judgmental term which has no place in an objective presentation. Present the facts, then allow the reader to draw his own conclusion; don't draw it for him.


 * Part of the problem (which my revision also partially addressed) is that the passage as it stands conflates two separate historical periods: "devised as part of" speaks to origins, whereas the portion of the sentence after the semicolon speaks to current usage. Which one are we talking about here? CNJECulver (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think our basic disagreement is over whether an encylopedia should correct misconceptions or allow them to stand... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're flailing at strawmen. Nonetheless, the purpose of an encyclopedia is decidedly not to correct erroneous views or to advocate any particular view whatsoever, but to present at least the major views in an impartial and equal manner. This is stated in the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. See at least the discussion on Neutral point of view.


 * If you're insistent on retaining "erroneously", at the very least it needs to be presented in a context of neutrality. As it currently stands it is a clear example of editorial bias. Something such as the following:




 * presents both sides of the controversy while allowing the article itself to remain neutral, something it does not, in its present state, do. CNJECulver (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not neutral between the hypotheses that the earth is flat and the earth is round, and it's an objectively verifiable fact that Christograms and "Xmas" were not originally devised for the purposes of anti-Christian secularization. AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but it must be supported with verifiable, independent citations. The article, as it stands, devotes most of its space to a discussion of "X", building an argument in its own right.  That starts to look very much like original research.  What we need is direct, independent references relating to the su bject itself - that is "Xmas".  I'm actually quite sure that the origin is as described, but we need good references to support it, not a essay explaining it!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the X in Xmas comes from early Christian practices of writing Christograms, so the use of "X" in such Christograms is highly relevant. The first edition of the OED defines Xmas only by saying "Common abbreviation in writing of CHRISTMAS; see X [definition] 6", and definition 6 of the entry "X" in the OED states as follows: "In writing the name CHRIST, esp. in abbreviated form, X or x represents the first letter of Gr. XPICTOC khristos, and XP or xp the first two letters.  Hence in early times Xp, in more modern times Xt, Xt, and X, are used as abbreviations of the syllable Christ, alone or in derivatives; thus Xpen, Xpn = CHRISTEN, Xpenned = CHRISTENED; Xpian, Xtian(ity) = CHRISTIAN(ITY), XMAS (Xstmas, Xtmas) = CHRISTMAS.  Xpc stands for XPC, contracted form of XPICTOC."
 * Not sure what you want this article to do with respect to etymology and origins that would be radically different from the basic OED approach... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're arguing that Xmas-as-secularization-conspiracy belief falls outside NPOV policy (see also Writing for the Opponent, especially the paragraph "Neutrality is not Centrality") because it's a fringe theory of the same ilk as flat-earth advocacy, then it doesn't belong in the article at all; we should just go ahead and delete all references to it. The rest of your argument has been addressed several times above. CNJECulver (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been saying consistently and clearly all along that the "Xmas-as-secularization-conspiracy belief" is objectively verifiably factually wrong INSOFAR AS IT ATTEMPTS TO DEAL WITH THE ORIGINS AND ETYMOLOGY OF THE SPELLING -- and that being the case, there's no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't be able to point out this mistaken belief as indeed being mistaken... AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you have or not is debatable. Since the passage has now been rewritten to remove the editorial bias, this discussion has become moot (unless someone reverts it again). CNJECulver (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with this paragraph:

"Today" is too vague. "Some believe" with or without the "erroneously" is too vague and ripe for someone to slap a tag on it.

This is, I believe, what Bratcher's point is:

--Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Without having an opinion on whether it is erroneous or not, I would be looking for a few more references that support the claim. The citation given is a weak one (more like an essay).  If you've got the references, it stays.  If not (like anything else on WP), it should go.  By the way, the whole article has a "Soapbox" feel about it.  Not much discussion about the actual subject, but a lot concerning the use of "X" in other contexts.  Does this constitute original reserach? WP is not a forum to argue a point, but one to state facts on a given matter. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where would you look for better sources? How quickly can you find them? --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First, let me note in passing that the Third Opinion Request was removed because there are more than two editors involved in the dispute. (I did not remove it, but I did remove the 3O template from the article page by way of cleanup.) Second, let me just throw in my two cents: The real problem here isn't so much the "erroneously," but the lack of sources for the claim that, erroneous or not, "some ... believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to 'take Christ out of Christmas' or to literally 'cross out Christ.'" Those sources must establish:
 * (1) that there is a widespread genuinely-held or widely-accepted belief
 * (2) that the term Xmas is being intentionally promoted (through advocacy or use) by one or more persons or organizations
 * (3A) for the purpose of furthering the secularization of Christmas and
 * (3B) for the purpose of taking the word "Christ" out of the word "Christmas" in public use and
 * (4) that this belief is different from, among other distinctions, (a) the belief that Christmas is becoming secularized, (b) the belief that there is an effort to secularize Christmas, and (c) the belief that the mere use of the term is contributing to the secularization of Christmas.

The sources currently cited for this claim (both here and in Secularization of Christmas) claim that such a belief exists, but offer no proof of it and launch into the Chi-Rho defense with no more justification than would exist if the claim were merely a straw man. While there are a couple of idiosyncratic views (by Smith and Robnett) reported at Secularization_of_Christmas that the use of Xmas is part of a Jewish anti-Christian campaign, they do not support the existence of a widespread belief. To the extent that such a belief exists, the lack of supporting documents suggests strongly that it is a fringe belief to which WP:ONEWAY should be applied such that there should be no mention of the belief in the article at all. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Using "some believe" is poor writing for an encyclopedia. I rewrote it, attaching it to the source who summarizes the controversy. Don't like that one? Which one(s) would be better?
 * I don't understand your final paragraph. --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As for sources, look at article Christogram, or a book like Church Symbolism: An Explanation of the more Important Symbols of the Old and New Testament, the Primitive, the Mediaeval and the Modern Church by Frederick Roth Webber (2nd. edition, 1938).
 * But of course, you won't find explicit assertions there that the monks and pious Christians of many centuries ago who devised religious monograms such as "Chi Rho" (ΧΡ), "IC XC", "ΙΧΘΥΣ", "XRS" etc. etc. (which in turn influenced "Xmas") didn't do so out of motivations of "secularism", because that's a preposterously anachronistic and simply ludicrous hypothesis which doesn't come up in the scholarly study of early Christian iconography. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni3, I'm not sure if you're referring to my final paragraph or someone else's? AnonMoos, I'm not talking about sources for those assertions? Are both of you referring to each other's prior comments or to something that I said? Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How awesomely comical. I don't know what you were posting about, TransporterMan. Neither did you I. What are we discussing? --Moni3 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mony3, let me state the conclusion of my last paragraph plainly: Unless independent reliable sources can be provided for the assertion, "some ... believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to 'take Christ out of Christmas' or to literally 'cross out Christ'," it ought to be deleted (for the reasons I set out in detail, above) whether or not the belief is erroneous. AnonMoos, let me add, just in case your last comment was pointed to my comments, that I was talking only about sources for that same assertion, i.e. "some ... believe that the term Xmas was devised as part of an effort to 'take Christ out of Christmas' or to literally 'cross out Christ'," not sources for the assertion that that the X in Xmas came from Chi-Rho, which I was not addressing at all. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 03:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are five reliable sources that relate the abbreviation of Xmas to "taking Christ out of Christmas", in addition to Dennis Bratcher's piece. These are only the ones I could find in a 20-minute search on Google News for sites I did not have to pay for. I will have access in the first week of January to a database of news stories, commentary, and opinion pieces and will be able to find others. --Moni3 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roland Martin opinion piece from CNN
 * From a Canadian Christianity website
 * Record-Courier (Minden Nevada)
 * Franklin Graham interview with Soledad O'Brien
 * Graham again on Hannity & Colmes

--- Wikipeterproject is correct: the one reference provided does nothing more than repeat the claim that "some people believe" without providing any further support for the claim. As such, it is no better than hearsay.

However, the entire section really ought to be removed for at least two reasons: a) inadequate sourcing (the one source provided does nothing more than repeat hearsay; see point 1); b) it doesn't belong in a section entitled "History". If someone wants to create a separate section entitled "Controversy", perhaps this material (once properly sourced) might be moved there, along with the statement further down beginning with "While some see the spelling of Christmas as Xmas a threat...."CNJECulver (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In a WP:BOLD move, I've rewritten the paragraph. I am willing to discuss it, but this conversation is confusing in the extreme. Formatting using hr lines adds to it. A mass deletion of the talk page content adds to it as well. I don't know who is talking to whom and what really is being discussed. Please do not add hr lines and make your comments as clear as possible. Internet communication is difficult enough as it is. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Controversy section
Much of the discussion in the "erroneously" section above revolves around claims involving the belief that the use of "Xmas" is part of a concerted campaign to secularize Christmas, and whether or not that belief is in error. The disputed passages currently are part of the History section where they clearly do not belong. As a first step in settling the discussion and cleaning up the article, we need to create a "Controversy" section and move the material there. Specifically, at least the following passages should be relocated.

This will have at least the following advantages:


 * Those looking specifically for a discussion on the controversy will be able to find it, rather than having to pick it piecemeal out of several sections.


 * It'll make possible an expanded, focused treatment of the controversy, rather than the short shrift it currently gets.


 * It will allow clean-up and tightening of sections such as the History section, which currently wanders all over the map.


 * It just plain makes sense :-)

CNJECulver (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "X" for "Christ"
I'm attempting to fill in some of the [citation needed] tags in this section.

1. occasionally held belief that the 'X' represents the cross on which Christ was crucified

I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to track down references to this "occasionally held belief", and I come up empty. Can anyone else supply a reference? If not, perhaps this passage should be removed.

2. X-as-chi was associated with Christ long before X-as-cross could be, since the cross as a Christian symbol developed later.

"Long before" and "developed later" are ambiguous. According to this, the cross was already associated with Christianity in the 2nd century.

In any case, viz., the "X-as-cross" hypothesis, it is only necessary for the cross to predate "Xmas", not Chi-Rho, so the above seems irrelevant. CNJECulver (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the discussion about "X" representing the cross, the shape of the cross and "X" being a tribute to martyrs. All uncited and not particularly relevant to the article anyway. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating to the third and fourth centuries used "X" as an abbreviation for Christ, says Greg Carey, professor of the New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary. The abbreviation helped manuscript writers fit more words on a page, reducing the time and cost of producing the texts, a page of which "would cost you the equivalent of a nice shirt today," he says. According to the "Christian Writer's Manual of Style," the "X" in "Xmas" is the symbol for the Greek letter "chi" and has been used since the first century for the name of Christ (Christos) . By the 15th century, "Xmas" emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas, according to Dennis Bratcher of the Christian Resource Institute. In a 2011 column, Bratcher writes religious publishers began using the abbreviation to cut down on the cost of books and pamphlets following the invention of the printing press in 1436. "From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and 'Xmas' became an accepted way of printing 'Christmas' (along with the abbreviations 'Xian' and 'Xianity')," writes Bratcher, a professor of Old Testament with a doctorate in biblical studies."

Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/794883_The--X--factor.html#ixzz2FyOymlw5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archclng (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Alan Chesters reference
In the United Kingdom, The former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, once recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.

This sentence seems a bit problematic for a couple of reasons. First, it really belongs with the controversy discussion rather than in the "Usage in English" subsection. Second, neither the sentence itself, nor the source cited, makes clear why Chesters made the recommendation -- did he himself oppose the abbreviation, or was he merely doing so out of respect for those who did?

At the least it should be moved to the controversy discussion. But there are already several examples provided there, so it's really probably superfluous. And certainly, for the reason above, it's a weak example.

Perhaps it should just be removed. CNJECulver (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name"
As they stand, the claims in this paragraph that χ by itself was used as an abbreviation of Χριστός either in Christian iconography or in New Testament manuscripts are incorrect. It was common scribal practice to abbreviate certain terms, such as the Nomina Sacra, using combinations of the first two letters, the first and last letters, and so forth, but never the first letter alone.

This page:

http://www.linguistsoftware.com/ntmss.htm#SampleWashingtonianusLS

shows examples of abbreviations commonly used in early New Testament mss. Scroll down to the WashingtonianusNS and you can find examples such as chi-nu, chi-rho-nu, chi-rho, chi-sigma, and so forth (note that in NT mss. a line was placed over the letter-combination to indicate it was an abbreviation), but never simply chi.

Encountering New Testament manuscripts;: A working introduction to textual criticism, by Jack Finegan, pp. 32-33 discuss abbreviation practices in NT mss. He lists two examples for Χριστός: Χς and Χρς. Again, no mention of Χ alone. Those two pages may be viewed at Google Books via the following link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fIcU1BFiMBgC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=abbreviations+in+new+testament+manuscripts&source=bl&ots=IBeuyMS9_i&sig=xO_lZQMFAtkejKKHtjUtMRsGIIw&hl=en&ei=j0w_S8SjLYb-sgOjzoG-BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=abbreviations%20in%20new%20testament%20manuscripts&f=false

Similarly, the reference provided from the New Advent site, supports Chi-Rho as an early Christian icon, but not Chi alone.

I don't have access to the full OED (online access is for-pay), so I can't verify whether it supports "X-" as claimed. The Merriam-Webster reference does make the claim, but the examples it provides, all drawn apparently from the OED, are for two-letter combinations, nothing for Χ alone.

Unfortunately, this goes straight to the heart of the argument the article is trying to draw -- namely, that "X-for-Christ" is a direct descendant of ancient abbreviations -- wounding it severely. If the article is trying to draw a line from ancient practices -- Χρ, Χς, Χρς, "Xt", and so forth -- to modern, it can't just waltz right past this issue without comment. CNJECulver (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In "ΙΧΘΥΣ", Χ stands for khristos, and the OED definition I included in my comment of "14:01, 29 December 2009" says that "X" was used as an abbreviation for "Christ" in earlier English. Unfortunately, skill at searching theough Google Books will not necessarily give you a solid scholarly foundation in any particular field of study. AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am addressing the article's claims that Chi by itself was ever used as either an icon of Christ or an abbreviation for Χριστός in NT mss. ΙΧΘΥΣ is an acronym, not an abbreviation, which appears neither in NT mss. nor this article, and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion. Similarly, your OED citation also not does not address that and so also is irrelevant.


 * Personal comments are also irrelevant. I am not attempting to demonstrate expertise in any field, merely looking for citations relevant to the topic at hand.


 * My personal opinion is that the article really doesn't need to be trying so hard to establish a Greek pedigree for X (as in eks, not chi). It should be enough to demonstrate its English derivation, and for that your OED citation would be more directly to the point. CNJECulver (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ADDENDUM: I now have access to the OED. You previously asserted:
 * "the OED definition I included in my comment of '14:01, 29 December 2009' says that 'X' was used as an abbreviation for 'Christ' in earlier English."


 * It most certainly does not. What it clearly says, as you yourself quoted it, is "...in modern times ... X ...". By juxtaposing that with "early times", in fact, the OED directly refutes your assertion. Neither the OED nor any other reference cited in this article supports the contention that X or Chi alone have historically (that is, prior to, say, the 17th century) been abbreviations for Christ. I have slapped a citation needed tag on one such claim.


 * As to the OED reference, of the seventeen examples the OED cites, going back to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1021, the only early example of X alone is from the English Wyclifite Sermons in 1380, and I trust it won't be necessary to belabor why that doesn't support the assertion. The remainder of the OED examples are bi- or tr-grammitic: Xp&minus;en, Xp&minus;n, Xp&minus;c, Xpian, Xtian, Xtianity, Xts, Xt and so forth.


 * As is every example cited in this article. e.g., "'Christ' was often written as 'XP' or 'Xt'"; the labarum; and Xtina, which the article correctly parses as Xt-ina). Where the article does assert X or Chi alone, it either fails to provide sources (the NT mss. reference; I previously provided links refuting that assertion) or the source provided does not support the assertion; such as, "In ancient Christian art, χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name," in which the cited reference, the "Monogram of Christ" article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, states, "the abbreviation of Christ's name formed by combining the first two letters of the Greek form" (my emphasis). And in any case, it's not at all obvious that monograms are relevant to the point.


 * I reiterate, the question of whether Christ's name was historically abbreviated as X or Chi alone is directly relevant to the argument the article is trying to build. Though the article makes the claim repeatedly, it fails to support it. In any case, since what we're discussing is the English practice, a detailed argument on Greek and Latin customs is out of place, and should be replaced with a single-sentence summation.
 * CNJECulver (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll reference
I've replaced the [citation needed] tag for the Lewis Carroll reference in the "Usage in English" subsection with the same M-W article footnote used for Oliver Wendell Holmes, as the M-W article contains the citation.

The citation comes from a letter Dodgson (Carroll) wrote in 1864. That letter is reproduced in at least the Broadview Press edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Richard Kelley, ed.), p. 250.

http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=208&cat=0&page=1

The relevant page can be viewed at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HJ8Wg0u7CUgC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=%22which+I+hope+to+get+published+before+Xmas%22&source=bl&ots=Rsiboql_0b&sig=xU6zhGF8pGh6LluEa5yL85Cs_-c&hl=en&ei=x3E_S5WLEYf8tAP027CHBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22which%20I%20hope%20to%20get%20published%20before%20Xmas%22&f=false

I'd add the reference myself. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to do references in Wikipedia yet. Anyone want to add it? CNJECulver (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite needed for X-mas?
What really is asking to be cited? --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think December21st2012Freak is asking for a citation for the "X-mas" (mis)spelling only. CNJECulver (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but why? Who, besides December21st2012Freak, is saying this is likely to be contested? I do not understand what is controversial about the hyphen. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed "X-mas". If it's of significance, it could be included elsewhere in the article, but (as far as I can determine) it's not widely (mis)used enough to warrant inclusion in the lead.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

X-mas origination
I was always told X-mas and X-ing came from X being a turned 'cross' and cross represents christ. Therefore you get 'cross'ing and 'christ'mas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.192.190 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Xing" for "Crossing" is kind of a late development. "X" as an abbreviation of the name of Christ goes back to ancient Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From the lede of the article: "the "X" comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός, translated as "Christ". 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

comment moved from article page
Xmas is NOT disrespectful. "X" was commonly used in place of "Christ" during the Middle Ages and was in fact pronounced "Christ". "Christianity" was often spelled "Xianity" -- 23:07, 2 December 2010 173.70.107.147

Another century-old image
AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Usage of 'X' for "Christ" section misnamed
One comes to this article, sees 'Usage of "X" for "Christ"' in the outline and would, presumably, expect to find a discussion of examples of the usage of X for Christ. What one gets instead is a two-paragraph discussion of controversy, before the section finally gets around to it alleged topic.

Either this section needs to be renamed, or the material on the controversy needs to be removed to its own section. It certainly doesn't belong here. CNJECulver (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is not a general discussion of Christograms; it mentions "Usage of 'X' for "Christ" as far as it is relevant for "Xmas"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what? I said "the controversy stuff is out of place". You say, "This is not a general discussion of Christograms". Did I miss something?


 * In any case, I agree. This article is not a discussion of Christograms. It is not even a discussion of "X as an abbreviation of 'Christ'". It is a discussion specifically of "Xmas". Which is why most of the material on monograms and Greek antecedents (not to mention the Chi-Rho image) doesn't belong, as I've been saying for two years. The whole article is poorly structured and unfocused, which is why it still a starter-class article (entry #632 at https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/bin/bin/list2.fcgi?namespace=&importance=&score=&sorta=Article%20title&run=yes&pagename=&sortb=Quality&projecta=Christmas&limit=250&quality=&&offset=501). CNJECulver (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have very little idea what you're talking about. Naturally this article only discusses things as far as they are relevant to the main subject of this article.  It's not a general dissertation on Greek monograms of the name of Jesus Christ (such a general dissertation of any extended length would be out of place on this article); it's a discussion of them insofar as they're relevant to "Xmas", and of issues that arise concerning them in relation to "Xmas".  Chi-Rho  is by far the most famous example of "X" standing for Christ in early Christianity. AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Restructuring
This is a proposal for a major restructuring and rewrite of the Xmas article. The article suffers from numerous structure and focus problems.

Its basic problem is that it forgets what it's supposed to be talking about. This is supposed to be an article specifically discussing the term "Xmas", not the more general usage of X as an abbreviation for Christ. As such, any discussion of the latter should be brief, and extend only insofar as it serves the purpose of explaining the origins of "Xmas". As it is, the article expends a great deal more energy and space discussing the general subject of X-for-Christ than is necessary for what should be only background material.

In addition, the discussion on controversy begins with the final paragraph on "Usage in English", leapfrogs over the section title, and continues in "Usage of 'X' for "Christ", despite being related to neither subject. When the controversy discussion finally winds up, we find ourselves back in the middle of the history exposition which it interrupted.

As such, then, I propose the following restructure:


 * Introduction
 * Usage in English
 * History
 * Modern Controversy
 * Styles and Etiquette
 * In popular culture
 * See also
 * References
 * External Links

Introduction


 * Xmas is a common abbreviation of the word "Christmas". It is sometimes pronounced /ˈɛksməs/, but it, and variants such as "Xtemass", originated as handwriting abbreviations for the typical pronunciation, /ˈkrɪsməs/. Etymologically, "mas" derives from the Old English "maesse", itself a corruption of the Latin "missa" ("dismissal"), which from ancient times has come to designate the Catholic Mass. "X" is a transliteration of the Greek &Chi; (chi), the first letter of the Greek name for "Christ".

Usage in English


 * History


 * Following the earlier Greek and Latin practice of abbreviating Christ's name using the first two, or the first and last letters (&Chi;-&Rho; in Greek) of the name, frequent early abbreviations of "Christ" in English include "XP", "XTS", "XS", and so forth. One of the earliest known examples of abbreviating Christmas comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronical (AD 1021): "On Xp-es maesse uhtan" [OED]. From 1551 we get "From X'temmas next following" (Edmund Lodge, Illustrations of British history, biography, and manners... I.145 (1791), as cited in the OED entry on Xmas).


 * In more modern times, it has become common to use X alone for Christ. "Xmas" is found, for example, in a letter from George Woodward in 1753.[7] Lord Byron used the term in 1811,[8] as did Samuel Coleridge in 1801 (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Letter to R. Southey, entry for Dec 31, 1801)[3] and Lewis Carroll (1864).[8] In the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used the term in a letter dated 1923.[8] Since at least the late 19th century, "Xmas" has been in use in various other English-language nations. Quotations with the word can be found in texts written in Canada,[9] and the word has been used in Australia,[5] and in the Caribbean.[10] Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage stated that modern use of the term is largely limited to advertisements, headlines and banners, where its conciseness is valued.


 * Modern Controversy


 * The abbreviation of Christmas as "Xmas" is the source of disagreement among Christians who observe the holiday. Dennis Bratcher, writing for a website for Christians, states "there are always those who loudly decry the use of the abbreviation 'Xmas' as some kind of blasphemy against Christ and Christianity".[12] Among them are evangelist Franklin Graham and CNN journalist Roland S. Martin. Graham stated in an interview:


 * "for us as Christians, this is one of the most holy of the holidays, the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. And for people to take Christ out of Christmas. They're happy to say merry Xmas. Let's just take Jesus out. And really, I think, a war against the name of Jesus Christ.[13]"


 * Martin likewise relates the use of "Xmas" to his growing concerns of increasing commercialization and secularization of one of Christianity's highest holy days.[14] Bratcher posits that those who dislike abbreviating the word are unfamiliar with a long history of Christians using X in place of "Christ" for various purposes.


 * In the United Kingdom, the former Church of England Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters, recommended to his clergy that they avoid the spelling.[3] In the United States, in 1977 New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thomson sent out a press release saying that he wanted journalists to keep the "Christ" in Christmas, and not call it Xmas—which he asserted was a "pagan" spelling of Christmas.[11]


 * Style guides and etiquette
 * [As-is]


 * In popular culture
 * [As-is]

See Also
 * [As-is]

References
 * [As-is]

External Links
 * [As-is]

CNJECulver (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see little need for this. The discussion of ancient and medieval and early modern monograms and abbreviated quasi-monogrammic writing is not of great length, does not overwhelm the rest of the article, and provides relevant background.  The way you have it, your "Usage in English" section is really not limited to discussing usage in English... AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'd rather see this article merged into Christmas controversy; I don't think it needs an article on its own. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 09:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article isn't only about the controversy, and "Xmas" is actually only one small facet of the Christmas controversy topic, so it makes sense to me to have two separate articles. AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By my count, some 125 of 976 words, as the article currently stands, are devoted to Greek monograms and the like. That's 13% of the article devoted to what should, at most, be a passim reference. Toss in the rest of the X-for-Christ discussion (remember, this is supposed to be an article on Xmas) and the word-count rises to 368, or 38%.


 * Which portions of the proposed Usage in English section don't talk about Usage in English? And how is it not an improvement over the current Usage in English, which spends a full third of itself talking about controversy?


 * You're fond of quoting the OED, and in fact I think it offers good guidance on this point. Its discussion of Xmas is succinct, to the point, with less than a half-dozen historical references, and absolutely no mention of Greek monograms whatsover. In fact, the OED's entire discussion of X-for-Christ (which also mentions Greek antecedents only obiter dictum, as my propose restructure here does) is found not under Xmas but under the letter X, and this is ideally the approach that should be followed at Wikipedia as well; nearly the entirely discussion of X-for-Christ and Greek monograms should be moved to a separate page which is then linked into the X_disambiguation page, and relegated to the "See also..." section here. My proposal isn't nearly that radical.


 * As to "relevant background material", this is entirely my point. Background material in general, which is supportive of the main topic, but not directly part of it, should at most be summarized in-line; detailed background information -- which is clearly what this article's treatment of Greek monograms and X-for-Christ qualifies as -- belongs under "For further information", not cluttering up the body of the article. See WP:TOPIC.


 * As it stands, this article is still agenda-driven, entirely too focused on trying to dismantle one side of the controversy debate. This was evident in the word "erroneously" that was discussed (and thankfully removed) a couple of years back, and continues, albeit more subtly, in the over-stressing of Greek antecedents the article currently evinces, which is barely even relevant to a discussion of English custom. Even the comment from CIS above is telling: that he proposes merging it with the Christmas controversy reflects the fact that this article is entirely too focused on that aspect of Xmas.


 * In its present state, this article is well-deserving of its starter-class assessment. I'd love to see it move up (in fact, I submitted it for reassessment a few days ago), but without some major reworking, that'll never happen.


 * BTW, I edited your indentations to reduce the margins; that should leave more room for further discussion, should any take place. CNJECulver (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't see what the problem is in having 13% of this article devoted to historical origins, since this is a Greek-language-based religious abbreviation of a type which is otherwise not too frequently occurring in ordinary non-erudite contemporary English, and which is not commonly very well understood by the majority of English speakers today. And in your revised outline, the very first sentence of the "Usage in English" subsection is conspicuously not about usage in English.   And I indented it that way since you had multiple levels of indentations in your comment, and I was trying to avoid any possibility  of confusion for other people... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thirteen percent is way too much space to be devoting to something that is not the topic of the article; thirty-eight percent even more egregiously so. I'll mention WP:TOPIC once more; it fits this article to a T. Alternatively one might ask, would the discussion of X-for-Christ potentially be of interest to any other topics on Wikipedia -- say, an entry on Xtian or Xtina, should such entries appear? If so, then the material is a) not directly on-topic here and b) needs to be moved to its own page so that it can be accessed by other topics as well, rather than buried in an article on Xmas. Which is why the OED offers a much better model: the whole discussion belongs under the general X rubric, where it is both more directly relevant and more accessible.


 * And why would you think the subject of the first sentence of "Usage in English" is not about English? (Hint: the reference to Greek occurs in a dependent clause.)


 * And, by the way, I left the entire Other uses of "X" for "Chris-" intact despite the fact that it doesn't belong in the article at all. If X-for-Christ is not directly on-topic here, X-as-a-substitute-for-anything-vaguely-resembling-c-h-r-i-s has moved completely out of bounds. Tossing that in to the total brings us to nearly 52%.


 * If you don't like my proposal, do you have any suggestions for moving this article out of the Wikipedia gutter? CNJECulver (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really not entirely sure what the main point of this mini-foofaraw or broo-ha-ha is. People are naturally curious about "Xmas", which is not an ordinary English abbreviation type, and when the most basic question is answered, they naturally have further questions.  This article answers most such questions, without going off on any lengthy tangents or discursions about matters which are not somewhat closely related to explaining "Xmas".  I really don't know why this article is supposed to be in the "gutter"[sic].  It's true that it doesn't have an ultra-narrow laser-like focus on one single thing, but that actually seems suitable to the subject matter -- if it did have an ultra-narrow laser-like focus on one single thing, it would end up being more of a Wiktionary entry than a Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Naturally have further questions" is what the External Links section is for. Look at the top of the Talk page -- this is a Start-Class article, which, according to the Holidays quality scale, means it "needs substantial improvements in content and organisation." That's what I'm trying to do. Without substantive changes, it will continue to languish at the bottom of Wikipedia quality standards.


 * I'll wait a couple more weeks to give others a chance to chime in, then start making the necessary changes. CNJECulver (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Blanket statement
"There is a common misconception that the word Xmas is a secular attempt to remove the religious tradition from Christmas[3] by taking the "Christ" out of "Christmas"."

I propose taking this line out of the lede. There's no way one blanket statement can account for every use of "Xmas", not everyone in the English language, including those that use the phrase "Xmas", knows that X comes from the Greek work for Christ.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the wording as problematic but I tweaked it to say "...the word Xmas stems from a secular..." to keep the focus on the etymology of the word, which is what the article is basically focusing on. If the community doesn't like this, I don't object to my edit being undone. Against the current (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * CR90/CRRaysHead90 -- I don't see what the problem is -- it is a somewhat common misconception, and nothing that you've said contradicts this. AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly referenced included unsourced authorial conjecture
I've removed the parenthetical comment " (This last usage is most probably as a space saving abbreviation.)" from the In popular culture Monopoly reference. Unless someone can find a statement from Parker Brothers that this is the case, this seems to be pure authorial conjecture. 220.143.198.161 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Xtmas
See here the use of the variant "Xtmas" in a 1913 letter (authorial ephemera added to the book scanning, very good idea) by John Batchelor, a Christian missionary. (One who obviously lived for decades in Hokkaido trying to convert locals by translating the Bible to Ainu and going broke in the process only as a cover-up for his devious plan for the secularization Christmas, culminating in this letter!) Tuvalkin (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * (Oh, he kinda looks like Santa: That explains it!) Tuvalkin (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)