Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,546,414 edits
m Signing comment by 173.67.137.26 - "→‎101 Biblical Words (About The Christmas Holiday): new section"
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
5,136,554 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Holidays}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}.
 
(211 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|class=B|importance=Mid|Christmas=yes|Christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=Mid|christmas=yes|christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=Mid|Christmas=yes|Christmas-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid|christmas=yes|christmas-importance=Top}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
| width="48px" | [[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|50px|Articles for deletion]] || This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] {{#if:25/8/2006|on 25/8/2006|recently}}. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization_of_Christmas|the discussion]] was {{{result|'''merge and redirect'''}}}.
}}
|}<!-- From Template:Oldafdfull -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Christmas controversies/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 4
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Old afd|date=25/8/2006|result='''merge and redirect'''|page=Secularization_of_Christmas}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{Old afd|date=2005-12-25|result=speedy keep|page=War on Christmas}}
|-
{{Old afd|date=2005-12-26|result=speedy keep|page=War on Christmas2}}

{{archive box}}
| style="text-align: center" |
{{Broken anchors|links=
This article was nominated for '''''[[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]''''' on [[2005-12-25]].
* <nowiki>[[Best Buy#2006 Christmas controversy|Best Buy Corporation]]</nowiki> The anchor (#2006 Christmas controversy) [[Special:Diff/179721598|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"2006 Christmas controversy","appear":{"revid":148677508,"parentid":148106718,"timestamp":"2007-08-02T08:13:40Z","removed_section_titles":["2006 \"Christmas\" controversy"],"added_section_titles":["2006 Christmas controversy"],"replaced_anchors":{"2006 \"Christmas\" controversy":"2006 Christmas controversy"}},"disappear":{"revid":179721598,"parentid":179684404,"timestamp":"2007-12-23T03:22:47Z","removed_section_titles":["2006 Christmas controversy"],"added_section_titles":["Christmas controversy"],"replaced_anchors":{"2006 Christmas controversy":"Christmas controversy"}},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Christmas controversy"} -->
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. <!-- please do not add bolding to speedy keep here: this breaks many places where it is already specified -->
}}
An archived record of this discussion can be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Christmas|here]].
|}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-

| style="text-align: center" |
This article was nominated for '''''[[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]''''' on [[2005-12-26]].
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. <!-- please do not add bolding to speedy keep here: this breaks many places where it is already specified -->
An archived record of this discussion can be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Christmas2|here]].
|}
{{archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]], [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]]}}

== Killing Christmas? ==
Even if quite a few people now and then get somewhat fed up with all the tingle-tangle and the comercialism around christmas time, I wouldnt say there is a "War Against Christmas" as much as the writer of this article desperately tries to start one. Clearly overreacting, exadurating and not in the least objective. As interesting and intriguing as it might be, this is certainly more suitable for a column than an encyclopedia. This particular method of "planting" articles on unverified subjects based on more or less made up facts and refering to dubious or no sources at all has become a real problem for Wikipedia. Writers appearing with a personal interest or for personal gain, trying to induce or start a new sort of movement or conceptual trend by implying that they already exist when they don't.

Best regards from
Motherload Christmas

...and yes I almost forgot: Please be a darling and have mercy on my spelling and grammer, english is not my first languege. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.232.254.31|90.232.254.31]] ([[User talk:90.232.254.31|talk]]) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== POV? ==
"as well as several other prominent retailers that practiced similar downgradings of the holiday."
This seems a bit...loaded? Downgrading of the holiday? It sounds like an assumption of deliberate, well, downgrading of the holiday. As opposed to, say, "...that practiced similar obscuration of the holiday."
Maybe not even obscuration. But it sounds (to my ears) like an implication of intent to insult Christmas (when my cynical mind would suggest that, more likely, it is an attempt not to alienate any customer base and thus lose money)
Thoughts?
[[User:FangsFirst|FangsFirst]] ([[User talk:FangsFirst|talk]]) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "obscuration" rather than "downgrading." Most retailers will gladly take (and some even rely on) the massive upsurge in shopping in November and December related to Christmas, but some (Target is a recent example, at least from a few years ago) have been known to tone down or even eliminate decorations (excepting those for sale) and ambient music. [[User:HappyJake|HappyJake]] ([[User talk:HappyJake|talk]]) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Obscuration demonstrates the frustration that some feel without making it sound like an intentional insult, which it is not. [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] ([[User talk:Gtbob12|talk]]) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If everyone has agreed that "downgrading" ought to be replaced by "obscuration", why hasn't anyone done it yet? Regardless, I'm going to change it. [[User:Ginnna|<font style="background: #CD5555" face="Century Gothic" color="#FFFFFF">'''Ginnna'''</font>]] 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I just stopped by to get some information, and it struck me that this article could have been written by the AFA, since it consists mostly of a year-by-year listing of their purported triumphs in boycotting assorted retailers. Couldn't that be boiled down to "The American Family Association claims that its boycotts have coerced retailers into changing their advertising" or something? [[Special:Contributions/66.92.68.103|66.92.68.103]] ([[User talk:66.92.68.103|talk]]) 06:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I added a sentence a while back that states that most of the boycots are generated by the AFA. Still, I find this section problematic. The average reader might assume that there is a large move to boycot these stores when, in fact, most of these actions are linked only to the AFA. Sure, the article's contents are factual and verifiable, but they seem to unfairly emphasize the role of a relatively small organization. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elielilamasabachthani|contribs]]) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Other holidays ==

I think the article should note the other holidays occuring at the same time including Hanukkah, Yule, Kwanza, and im sure theres some more, and that the midwinter period is a traditional time for celebrations. also a lot of Christmas elements are actually taken from the other holidays. Eg Christmas trees, holy, etc from Yule, Christmas lights/ candles from Hanukkah. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.194.30.174|87.194.30.174]] ([[User talk:87.194.30.174|talk]]) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What does this have to do with Christmas-related controversy? Suggest this at [[Christmas/holiday season]], not here.. &mdash; [[user:CrazyInSane|<sup>`</sup>''C''<small>RAZY</small>`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE</small><sup>`</sup>]] 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about the history of Christmas... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.23.136.203|24.23.136.203]] ([[User talk:24.23.136.203|talk]]) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Request for comment on new edits==

I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversy&diff=231282983&oldid=228342992 made extensive changes] to the entirety of this article (minus the "Historical controversy" section), and I believe they're for the better. I am requesting external comment to determine if the edits suit the NPOV of the article, and to suggest improvements if needed. Thanks. &mdash; [[user:CrazyInSane|<sup>`</sup>''C''<small>RAZY</small>`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE</small><sup>`</sup>]] 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:Altho' the lead does mention Britain, it doesn't seem to feature prominently in the body of the article. There has been quite a bit of fuss about it here, with local authorities inventing something called Winterval, & Red Cross charity shops banning Christmas cards. Such behaviour has been criticized by Muslims among others, & the Red Cross objection to Christian symbols is absurd, as they are one themselves. I can't cite any sources for this, tho'. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::It all seems a wee bit pro-Christmas to me. Having lived in a very multicultural city, i'm used to having decorations etc in a combined display for Xmas, honnuka, Diwali. I'd never heard any complaints about this before - it made the holiday season longer and more fun! There are no notable groups supporting the idea of replacing Xmas? Eg. I'm sure i've read editorials, both pro and anti, in UK newspapers when Birmingham was having "Winterval" one year.
::Also i agree with the above that mentioning the overlapping holidays would help inform the reader and put this into context. If the holiday was ONLY about Xmas there would be no reason to downplay it, apart from the consumerist reasons given. Social inclusivity and unfairness in having government pay for holiday events for only one religion is also a factor. The name "Winterval" covered Xmas and Diwali, so the council only had to put up one set of non-religion-specific decorations. It's not only about "political correctness gone mad, and pro- and anti- christian biases. [[User:Yobmod|Yobmod]] ([[User talk:Yobmod|talk]]) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fair- one Super Winter Holiday, combining all the various stuff celebrated by people in the area. I've got no problem with that. However, it's when they've got "Happy Holiday" and it's clearly meaning Christmas (Santa and reindeer, nothing from other holidays), then that is when it's trouble. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.8.26.10|199.8.26.10]] ([[User talk:199.8.26.10|talk]]) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== pov tag ==

This article is entirely one-sided. It frequently cites the [[American Family Association]], which is as far from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] as it is possible to get. It uses isolated examples of people claiming to be atheist, Muslim, etc., to support the dubious conclusion that vast numbers of non-Christians are on board with this word policing. (And let's be clear, the word police are not the ones who choose to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", the word police are the ones who get their panties all up in a bunch of somebody ''else'' says "Happy Holidays" to ''them''!) It contained at least one glaring inaccuracy -- corroborating AFA's claim about Home Depot, which was exposed as a falsehood. The only time it refers to the motivations of those who wanted to use the more inclusive "Holiday" instead of "Christmas", it says that they are motivated by [[political correctness]], which is a loaded term with negative implications. And it does not ''at any time'' present the other side of the argument, that the people who are saying this are ''imagining the whole damn thing''. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

:Bah, I am trying to fix the article but I think I feel too strongly about this issue to do so neutrally. On a personal note, my wife and I are both atheists, but I come from a Christian tradition and she comes from a Jewish tradition, so we are proud to celebrate ''both'' Christmas and Chanukah in December, as a way of honoring our roots and celebrating tradition. So for my family, "Happy Holiday'''s'''" really is the most accurate -- and when people act like it's somehow offensive to say "Happy Holidays," I really want to kick them in the balls with a steel-toed boot. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the inherent anti-Semitism of the AFA's taking offense at Chanukah being acknowledged in ads? The same people that scream "NAZI!" every time anyone wants to do anything seem awfully intent upon expunging Jews from American culture. They don't make it a secret that they think black culture is inferior, but they do deny that they're anti-Semites. What about the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League's responses to this? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.190.204.16|67.190.204.16]] ([[User talk:67.190.204.16|talk]]) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Objectors ==

It seems odd to me, when giving examples of people "fighting" the War on Christmas, it mentions ''one'' Athiest, ''one'' Muslim, and ''two'' Jews... as though all those groups only have those specific people on that side. Just seems a little odd, right? One Muslim out of a billion? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.8.26.10|199.8.26.10]] ([[User talk:199.8.26.10|talk]]) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That's all that the citations support. Perhaps the assertion should be removed altogether, if the facts supported by the citation seem odd and out of place. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

==Discussion over neutrality of article==
::I think the point of that assertion is that it is not only right-wing Christian fundamentalists that concern themselves with this issue. I know several non-Christians personally (including myself) that share that view. Perhaps I could find additional citations. To add, I've done some changes to the recent additions by Jaysweet and an anonymous IP user. Let's discuss any further issues here. &mdash; [[user:CrazyInSane|<sup>`</sup>''C''<small>RAZY</small>`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE</small><sup>`</sup>]] 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Despite the fact that we find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue, I actually agreed with most of your recent edits. You have been fairly measured in your modifications to my edits, e.g. you are probably correct to put "claimed" rather than "revealed" in the paragraph talking about AFA's lies about Home Depot... since nobody really has solid proof either way.
:::I still have a problem with the "atheists, Muslims, and Jews" section, though. I see ''one'' person claiming to be an atheist who supports this. Frankly, I think just about everyone who isn't a fundie who thinks there is a "War on Christmas" is terribly misinformed -- I mean, people say Merry Christmas everywhere I go, there are plenty of Christmas displays, etc.... But whatever. I'll get off my [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] now.
:::I might be okay with wording to the effect of "Those who oppose this perceived censorship of Christmas include a number of individuals and organizations who adhere to a religion or philosophy other than Christianity", with the four cites all following that sentence. I am just not comfortable with saying that atheist'''s''' and Muslim'''s''', when there is only a single citation for each. I don't want to give [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to the few scattered atheists who have bought into this.
:::What do you think? ---[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I have incorporated these changes. Just so you know, I have basically been the sole editor of this article for several months now, and I've been trying to edit it as neutrally as possible (albeit including any information that can be cited), so sorry if I came off as a bit snappy or possessive. And though the article may seem one-sided, this is an article about Christmas ''controversy'', so there will generally be more [[WP:CITE|sources of information]] about those who ''perceive'' a "censorship" or controversy, rather than sources about those who perceive nothing. But regardless of my personal POV, please rest assured that I've been pretty adamant in ensuring [[WP:POV|neutrality]]. I very much welcome any sourced material you may find from the opposing argument.

::::I'm '''very''' glad to see someone else editing here, and glad to see they are on the other side of the argument. We can certainly work together to make this article as neutral as possible. If you see any other issues or have new material, please feel free to discuss it all here, and together, we can ensure to steer the article more toward neutrality and professionalism. I understand that the "other side" might not be covered enough in the article, so I'd be glad to have someone assist in filling the gap... with sources of course :). Thanks for your interest in the article (haha, I'm saying this as if it's MY article).

::::Also in case you were wondering, I removed the "''[[citation needed]]''" tag from the "[[Spring Holiday]]" mention because it links to an article that explains the situation. &mdash; [[user:CrazyInSane|<sup>`</sup>''C''<small>RAZY</small>`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE</small><sup>`</sup>]] 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

==links==
If the article is about Christmas we don't need all of this links pointing to other non-related crap. For example, why the hell is the word "pet" linked? We also don't need stuff like "New York City, "Greek Letter" "Public schools" "English" "Spanish" "Inclusive" "petitions" "retail" "mainstream media" and "customer service" linked. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.136.48.194|71.136.48.194]] ([[User talk:71.136.48.194|talk]]) 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Secularization of Easter==
There are similar controversies about the secularization of [[Easter]], which is more important than Christmas from a liturgical point of view. It would be interesting if we could have some information on that too. [[User:ADM|ADM]] ([[User talk:ADM|talk]]) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
:This article already exists, it's called [[Spring Holiday]]. I lobbied to have the title changed to ''Easter controversy'' to fall in line with this article, but consensus was not reached in favor of that &mdash; [[user:CrazyInSane|<sup>`</sup>''C''<small>RAZY</small>`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE</small><sup>`</sup>]] 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems ironic to me that someone would mention the secularization of what was originally a pagan holiday. Christians "stole" this one from the pagans (along with many of the holiday's traditions) and now complain that the holiday is becoming secular (which I think you define as anything non-Christian). The same irony exists with this Christma controversy. I wish more Christians would study the history of their religion. It's a rich and interesting history and it doesn't detract much from modern orthodox Christian ideaology. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.105.99.81|159.105.99.81]] ([[User talk:159.105.99.81|talk]]) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Yeah, some of the traditions as time went on came from everywhere (It's on Dec. 25 for a reason) but if you're trying to argue for anything more than that, aka pagan borrowing BS, you need to check your primary sources.[[Special:Contributions/69.254.76.77|69.254.76.77]] ([[User talk:69.254.76.77|talk]]) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

== '''God Condemns Christmas Trees''' ==

The King James Version reads: "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." I think its from Jeremiah 10 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.193.42.11|94.193.42.11]] ([[User talk:94.193.42.11|talk]]) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Glad I use a false tree then. Bahahaha[[Special:Contributions/216.185.250.92|216.185.250.92]] ([[User talk:216.185.250.92|talk]]) 19:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:Read the very next verse. It very specifically mentions palm trees, not the average Christmas tree. I gotta wonder why everyone condemning use of Christmas trees leaves that verse out... [[User:Farsight001|Farsight001]] ([[User talk:Farsight001|talk]]) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

::Does it really matter what type of tree it is? It would seem odd indeed to object to cutting down a palm tree and decking it with silver and gold, but not object to doing the exact same thing to a pine tree. There are a significant number of Christians who do object to Christmas trees on the basis of this verse, whether we think it matters what type of tree it is doesn't matter.--[[User:RLent|RLent]] ([[User talk:RLent|talk]]) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

== worldwide... ==
the article currently has some sort of box that asks for worldwide/inclusive coverage of the issue. I would assume whoever put it there can remove it. I've never come into contact with this issue on a major scale outside North America. Most traditionally/historically Christian countries either have an established state church or lack any explicit non-establishment clause. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.172.184.105|75.172.184.105]] ([[User talk:75.172.184.105|talk]]) 03:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Stop using the words "diversity" and "diversify". They are words used so often they have lost their meaning. Pluralism, I think would be a good replacement. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.71.66.154|84.71.66.154]] ([[User talk:84.71.66.154|talk]]) 14:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Wood for the Trees ==
This entire article is navel-gazing, cultural-relativist liberal BS. Talk about a civilisation rotting from within. I'm glad I don't live in the anglo-sphere, sorry multicultural-sphere! Don't you over-educated nincompoops understand that the majority of working class people in your countries don't give a toss about your hand-wringing hair-tearing verbal diarrhea? I think a lot of frustrated people on both sides of the fence are just using this article as their own personal battleground to act out their epic pie-in-the-sky fantasies of societal change. How can I get a vote/debate going against this article's right to exist?<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:86.140.121.99|86.140.121.99]] ([[User talk:86.140.121.99|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.140.121.99|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

Whaaaat? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.9.5.145|173.9.5.145]] ([[User talk:173.9.5.145|talk]]) 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] is over that-a-way. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
::We don't decide whether to delete articles based on whether a topic should logically exist and be a popular subject, we delete them based on whether the subject is notable and can be reliably sourced. The subject of this article is both notable and can be reliably sourced, whether you think its liberal propaganda or not. &mdash; '''[[user:CrazyInSane|''CIS'']]''' <sup>([[User talk:CrazyInSane|talk]] </sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/CrazyInSane|stalk]])</small> 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

* Funny, I thought it was navel-gazing, Christian Dominionist conservative BS. I guess on balance, then, it's probably as close to NPOV as we can get. Combine that with the facts that it's notable and [[WP:V|verifiable]], I'd say any attempt at deleting the article will wind up in the '''keep''' column. That would be my vote, anyway. -- [[User:JeffBillman|JeffBillman]] ([[User talk:JeffBillman|talk]]) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If anything, I thought this article's very existence was to promote a conservative Christian POV that secular, liberal people were waging a war against their religious freedom. Perhaps this article is more neutral than I had assumed. Still, I'd rather see the whole thig get deleted. Sure, it's notable and reliably sourced, but it really overemphasizes the claim that this "war on Christmas" is a big deal. Just my opinion. I'd vote to eliminate the article, but I am only lukewarm about that vote and wouldn't initiate the process myself. [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]]) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
:Well, regardless of the intent of the "War on Christmas" movement (that is, those claiming such a war, not those waging it), the movement is undeniably notable. It's been the subject of numerous articles and television segments. If there are problems with POV, though, we'd appreciate your help fixing them. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:I understand your concerns about the article, but if anyone can speak on the neutrality of the article, it's me. I have tried, over the years, to move this article to a more neutral status. Initially, the article was titled "War on Christmas", and I initiated discussion to move it to the more neutral "Secularization of Christmas" title, then to the even more neutral "Christmas controversy" title, which allows the article to incorporate both present-day and historical Christmas-related controversy in general. The opening paragraphs are mostly all my work, and I tried to be as accurate and neutral as possible in discussion the present-day issues. The entire "Present-day controversy" sections are mostly my doing as well. Feel free to help make the article more neutral, but I believe it is as neutral as it ever has been. &mdash; '''[[user:CrazyInSane|''CIS'']]''' <sup>([[User talk:CrazyInSane|talk]] </sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/CrazyInSane|stalk]])</small> 06:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just made an edit without realizing I wasn't signed in anymore. The one replacing "has been noticed" with "is felt by some" is mine. Apologies. [[User:Meservy|Meservy]] ([[User talk:Meservy|talk]]) 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "woodpile for the Yule log" not "wood for the trees"? (Is the reversal of [[wikt:see the forest for the trees]] intentional?) Regrettably notable far-right Christian [[manufactured controversy]], as noted above, with roots in [[anti-semitism]]. I doubt if an AfD is warranted, and there have been two prior which were speedy keeps, as well as one merge and redirect from another article. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] ([[User talk:Schizombie|talk]]) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

==Article==
This article is pure bias crap. Even the article as a whole doesn't seem to understand what the word controversy means. In sections like Retailer controversies, the entire section pretty much relies on the American Family Association.
While: "On December 5, retailer Costco Wholesale Corporation was criticized by the AFA for failing to use the term "Christmas" in any of their advertising.[54] The AFA later claimed on December 15 that Costco had decided to incorporate the term "Christmas" into their advertising and local correspondence.[55]"

How is this a 'controversy' its a pretty much meaningless thing that happened, with its only references being by the APA. This article not only needs a more worldwide viewpoint, but needs TO STOP TURNING SOMETHING THE APA OPPOSES into A 'CONTROVERSY'. Its all garbage and completely off topic. [[User:IAmTheCoinMan|IAmTheCoinMan]] ([[User talk:IAmTheCoinMan|talk]]) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:I agree, some of the examples in the Retailer controversies section only cite AFA. But many cite news articles and other sources as well, indicating controversy. The 2009 controversy with Gap, for example, was covered in USA Today and various other news sources. We can certainly remove the examples that only cite AFA. You haven't noted any further concerns about bias or neutrality, so please voice them if you have any other concerns about the article. I have removed the retailer "controversies" that only cited AFA. &mdash; '''[[user:CrazyInSane|''CIS'']]''' <sup>([[User talk:CrazyInSane|talk]] </sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/CrazyInSane|stalk]])</small> 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

== Missing info ==
The article is missing several things: 1. Mention of the expansion of the holidays' advertising to include Thanksgiving and New Year's, a primary, non secular reason for making the whole period a "holiday" season. 2. mention of how the "War" is perceived within the Christian church itself, ie, those Christians who consider it unChristian to pursue such boycots and aggressive behavior during the Christmas season, 3. a philosophical or pyschological look at why it's so important for certain types of people to come to the defense of the naming of Christamas, the hanging of the 10 commandments, and other related things that have little to nothing to do with the religious tenents of the belief itself.[[Special:Contributions/24.211.191.103|24.211.191.103]] ([[User talk:24.211.191.103|talk]]) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== The Tree at Rockefeller Center ==

The article states "As of 2008, there is no mention of 'Christmas' anywhere on the tree's official website." As of today, December 17, 2009, the term "Rockefeller Center Christmas tree" ''is'' used on Rockefeller Center's website (in addition to "The Tree at Rockefeller Center"). Also, the link to "the tree's official website" no longer works.

I am tempted to just delete the whole paragraph about this tree, but if this ''was'' true at one time it may be better to keep it as a historical statement. What say you all?
--[[User:ChasFink|ChasFink]] ([[User talk:ChasFink|talk]]) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As of today, that paragraph is giving false information and should be removed. I'll delete it, but if anyone wants to mention that there has been a historical controversy around the label for that tree, go right ahead and add it. The bottom line is that, as of right now, the info in that paragraph is not true and we have an obligation to remove it. [[Special:Contributions/159.105.99.83|159.105.99.83]] ([[User talk:159.105.99.83|talk]]) 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize...didn't realize I was logged off when I wrote the paragraph above. That one is mine under IP 159.105.99.83 [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]]) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

==Christmas trees in Israel==
The article should perhaps consider mentioning the fact that it is very difficult to display Christmas trees in Israel without facing some type of social or religious pressure. This type of campaign against Christmas trees tends to replicate similar controversies about the public exposition of creches in the United States, which are often alleged to be products of secular Jewish activists within like-minded groups such as the ACLU. [http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3815175,00.html][http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135512.html][http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1260447421455][http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/christmas-and-aclu] [[User:ADM|ADM]] ([[User talk:ADM|talk]]) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

== (Perceived?) censorship ==

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=334429672 this] edit and the two preceding it, is it appropriate to use the word ''perceived'' in describing the censorship of the terms Christmas, Easter, etc.? On one hand, it is Wikipedia policy to [[WP:AWW|avoid weasel words]], and ''perceived'' might be thought of as such a word. On the other hand, this page is discussing an avowed controversy, and seems to attribute (in the previous paragraph, as well as the one in question) the evaluation to particular individuals or groups. As my edits suggest, I believe that it is appropriate to include the word; clearly at least one other editor disagrees. Can we attempt to reach some consensus here? [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think the word "censorship" necessarily needs an adjective in that spot to indicate that it is a censorship that is being alleged. The word is first used within the context of a claim being made by Brimelow, O'Reilly, etc., so to my mind it follows that the "censorship" being referred to is that same one that they allege. "Perceived" is possibly inaccurate in that they don't necessarily actually perceive it; they claim to perceive it but arguably one or more of them might not really believe it exists but could be making it up for ratings, sales, etc. There are weasel words in that section, though: "a variety of prominent (peacock?) media figures and others" (who?) "a number of advertisers, retailers, government (prominentlyschools), and other public and secular organizations" (who?) "Some believe" (who?).


== non-controversy Christmas cancelation ==
:Incidentally, at some point it would be good to address the redlinks in the article. Nissenbaum[http://www.umass.edu/history/faculty/nissenbaum.html] seems like he might meet [[WP:ACADEMIC]], and I believe the Church League of America (1937-1980s) and Robnett would be. I should probably add the CLA to my userpage to remind myself. Skoros v. City of New York and the Lobby for Jewish Values I'd have to look up. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] ([[User talk:Schizombie|talk]]) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


An IP editor has been trying to edit-war in Boris Johnson "canceling Christmas" on this page, and while they have finally stopped using that terminology, this insertion has a basic problem: the [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tier-4-rules-london-covid-christmas-lockdown-b390412.html ''Evening Standard'' source being used] doesn't show any controversy in the move. It does say that some health folks don't feel the new strain is as deadly as they claim, but there's no statement from them against the restrictions. The only non-Johnson statement on the restrictions comes from [[Keir Starmer]], who, while finding the chance to snipe against the government's inconsistency, supports following these regulations. There may well be controversy over this move, but if so, it isn't in this source. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
== 101 Biblical Words (About The Christmas Holiday) ==


== [[Christmas truce]] <nowiki>{{redirect}}</nowiki> ==
A comparative analysis of Biblical words concerning the birth of Christ. This book also addresses particular "Christmas" words. The entire holiday is the direct antithesis of the purpose of the coming of Christ. Over the centuries the holiday has become ingrained in American culture and Americanized throughout the world.


Would be reasonably come here trying to come to find information on [[Christmas Truce]]? Even with the term [[War on Christmas]], I don't really see how that gets interpreted as what soldiers did in World War I on Christmas. I'll leave it in for now because it's not harmful, but if any other editors have input on whether or not it's a probable enough accidental search to have a hatnote for it. <span style="background: #e5a5a5;">[[User:Snood1205|snood1205]]<sup>([[User talk:Snood1205|Say Hi! (talk)]])</sup></span> 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
101 Biblical Words presents Biblical Truth in comparison to religious traditional practices. The book is unbiased towards any personal perspectives and beliefs. The focus of 101 Biblical Words is to show the truth in an effort to enlighten the spiritual eyes of the Believer and the reader. It is conceivable and realizable to walk in Truth. Christmas is a religious traditional practice of whom the one "they" say "they" are honoring stated that the truth will make you free.


== Gregorian calendar ==
Every Christian MUST put away personal feelings and beliefs and deal with two things: 1. Biblical Truth and 2. Historical fact. Read 101 Biblical Words this year and broaden your knowledge about the Truth of Christmas. Embrace the Truth! Spread the Truth! Love the Truth - because it will make you free.
The article includes the claim: "As early as 336, Roman Christians observed Christmas on 25 December of the Gregorian calendar", which is logically impossible as the Gregorian calendar was not introduced until 1582 (by Pope Gregory), more than a thousand years later.
[[Special:Contributions/86.11.96.95|86.11.96.95]] ([[User talk:86.11.96.95|talk]]) 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


== American Family Association ==
Available at Amazon.com under the title 101 Biblical Words or the author: Timothy J. Durden, Sr.
Lots of content and citations to the [[American Family Association]], which is not a reliable source, and in most cases, not an actual controversy, but rather a manufactured controversy that AFA invented. All of these should be removed and replaced with appropriate secondary sources if at all possible. This strange idea that a partisan, activist organization gets to invent any controversy they want and then to use citations from the same org to talk about the controversy they invented needs to stop. That's not how things work. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
comments can be sent directly to timdurden@verizon.net or on Amazon.com <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.67.137.26|173.67.137.26]] ([[User talk:173.67.137.26|talk]]) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 20:58, 12 February 2024

non-controversy Christmas cancelation[edit]

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

Christmas truce {{redirect}}[edit]

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

Gregorian calendar[edit]

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

American Family Association[edit]

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christmas_controversies&diff=1206682034&oldid=341732904

Leave a Reply