Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Iselilja (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
9,359 edits
→‎Norway and Sweden: Commenting; as the one who inserted this.
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
5,049,736 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}}.
 
(157 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Holidays|class=B|importance=Mid|Christmas=yes|Christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=Mid|Christmas=yes|Christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=Mid|christmas=yes|christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid|christmas=yes|christmas-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
}}
{{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
}}
}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
| width="48px" | [[Image:Evolution-tasks2.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 -->

{{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

There is no "war" against Christmas. There may well be a war against forcing everyone to partake of Christmas, whether they want to or not - and thats one I would definitely support, but I have never met anyone who wanted to stop others celebrating Christmas if that's what they want to do. There is, however, quite a large number of people who, given the chance, would prefer to abandon the enforced Christmas holidays and carry on as normal, taking the holiday at a much more sensible time (e.g. during the summer!) or maybe limiting Christmas to every 2 years. However, whenever anything like this is mentioned, the "you're against Christmas" brigade all pipe up, and thats where this article fits in. [[User:StanPomeray|StanPomeray]] ([[User talk:StanPomeray|talk]]) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...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-->

This article still has serious POV issues. I suggest eliminating it or doing a major revision. [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit|talk]]) 17:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

== 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)
:::["It seems ironic to me that someone would mention the secularization of what was originally a pagan holiday." ]
:::Easter was never a pagan holiday. It's called "Pascha" (passover) not "Easter" in almost the whole world and dates as a Christian holiday from the 1st century. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.211.236|207.237.211.236]] ([[User talk:207.237.211.236|talk]]) 18:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
::::I believe you might want to look up [[Ēostre]]. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 16:42, 13 December 2012 (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)

::Actually it says "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good." It's comparing them to palm trees, because in Arabic nations the palm tree is one of the few that are tall and straight, most share more charicteristics with bushes so it's using that as an example. [[Special:Contributions/71.84.126.174|71.84.126.174]] ([[User talk:71.84.126.174|talk]]) 12:32, 24 October 2010 (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)


it matters if your worship them. not if you use decoration. since silver and gold isnt exacly AVIABLE to all people now are they? they are very expensive even at that time. so yes its idoltry. owning a piggybank is not idoltry. worshipping it is[[Special:Contributions/77.53.83.205|77.53.83.205]] ([[User talk:77.53.83.205|talk]]) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (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?).

: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)

== Move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

'''No consensus''' to move. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

[[Christmas controversy]] → {{no redirect|1=War on Christmas}} — <small>'''Relisted'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)</small> 'Christmas controversy' is not a term in use, whereas 'War on Christmas' is, widely and frequently. [[User:Sumbuddi|Sumbuddi]] ([[User talk:Sumbuddi|talk]]) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is one main issue here, the so-called 'War on Christmas', plus a ragtag collection of largely unrelated historical issues surrounding Christmas.

The 'War on Christmas' is a modern phenomenon that should have its own article. The article under 'Present-Day Controversy' discusses the 'War on Christmas'. The 'Historical Controversy' is not related at all - the 'War on Christmas' describes what is in fact a campaign to '''preserve''' Christmas in the face of a perceived threat from secularists, whereas the 'Historical controversy' largely describes distinct historical campaigns against celebrating Christmas.

That 'War on Christmas' is a POV title is irrelevant - it is the title that is used by the people who discuss it, including those who think it is nonsense. e.g. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/09/hanukah-holiday-season]

There could possibly be a separate 'criticism of Christmas' page, but clearly the 'War on Christmas' is not part of that, because the 'War on Christmas' as described here doesn't relate to 'criticism' so much as 'perceived slights'.[[User:Sumbuddi|Sumbuddi]] ([[User talk:Sumbuddi|talk]]) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*The history of these pages is quite convoluted, if I recall correctly. Apparently at one point, these two titles were two separate articles that ended up merged as the topics were too similar. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The move would make sense if the article was just about the recent controversies, but the fact that it contains the historical controversies makes the arguments for the move not so relevant. Even if it didn't, "War on Christmas" is still unnecessarily POV, so this isn't really a good idea. --[[User:WikiDonn|WikiDonn]] ([[User talk:WikiDonn|talk]]) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

:We already have "War on Christmas" as a redirect, so anyone searching on that will come here. I see no reason to change the actual name of this article to a pov name, since the article is not just about the alleged war on Christmas but about Christmas controversies in general, and there is no reason to assume that there are/will be no contemporary Christmas controversies that are unrelated to the 'War'. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Did Jesus exist? ==

Regarding recent edits about whether or not Jesus should be described as someone who "presumably" existed, let me say that there is oerwhelming historical evidence in the form of ancient leters and scripture (both religious and secular) that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. One could argue whether or not he was the Christ promised in the Old Testament. He may have been God's son or he may have just been a regular man, that is an issue of faith, but the guy did actually exist. I don't ever like to see Wikipedia describe faith items as if they were factually true, but I think it goes too far to deny that Jesus actually existed. I will undo this edit. [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]]) 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence and proof are two different things. The ancient letters and scripture that you have mentioned could simply have been written by people with an agenda - yes, it proves people were talking about Jesus, it doesn't prove he existed. People often talk about Batman and he doesn't exist either! [[User:StanPomeray|StanPomeray]] ([[User talk:StanPomeray|talk]]) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We have the Scripture, but that was written a minimum of 30 years after the events it purports to describe. Please provide the letters and other evidence. Not just to Wikipedia but to academic historians, if you're sitting on a goldmine of theologically earth-shattering proportions, do please share.[[User:A pedant|A Pedant]] ([[User talk:A pedant|talk]]) 12:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Stan, I see your point about proof vs. evicence, but the evidence is substantial and is accepted by the majority of historians. It is clearly the minority view that Jesus never existed. I suppose there is no proof that George Washington existed either...all we have are letters and other documents (evidence). I'm all in favor of removing any statements that come from religious zealots who propose their faith as fact, but I just think it's difficult for any credible source to deny that Jesus lived. Perhaps it is fair to say there is no proof he existed, but that the overwhelming majority of historians concede the point.

Pedant, to your point, please research non canonical letters and sources regarding Jesus and early Christianity. You will see that there are plenty of sources, although they are weakened by the fact that none were written during Jesus' life. This isn't a good place for me to introduce you to early Christian history, so I'll leave you to research on your own. The bible is also a reasonable source of evidence, but it was clearly modified substantially during the first 1300-1400 years after Jesus' death. I would argue that the details of Jesus' life as described in the bible are difficult to characterize as reliable, but he probably did exist. Let me put it this way, why would they (early proto-orthodox Christians) make up the man Jesus? Clearly, the religion started through the work of Cefus, the two Marys and a small handful of others close to Jesus. Paul was probably more responsible for how Christianity emerged than anyone else. It's difficult for any historian to imagine any of these people gathering to secretly agree to make up Jesus. It is much easier to imagine that Jesus was a real man and these early Christians recounted or conspired to create the details of Jesus' life. The study of ancient history and textual criticism often rely on making logical connections and following the most likely path vs. the most complicated.
Is all of this proof that Jesus existed? No. It is not, but I think there is enough evidence that it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion. In closing, I'll say that I'm not going to bother changing this again if anyone decides to describe Jesus as fake. I've made my case and used up all my interest in this point on this discussion. [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]]) 15:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps making a distinction between the historical jesus and the jesus of faith? [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit|talk]]) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

== Thinking back to 2007 ==

This article used to have a lot of references to Bill O'Reilly's allegations about various groups that were committing offenses against Christmas. As it turns out, most of his claims were spurious, and that's probably why they've been removed. But the fact that BO'R made all these claims seems germane to the article, yes? [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] ([[User talk:Ethan Mitchell|talk]]) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

:How do we do that without the claims? I find this funny: [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/12/happy_holidays_from_the_fox_bu.html] and [http://www.newshounds.us/2004/12/24/happy_holidays_from_the_fox_news_channel.php] - Fox News, his employers, use "Happy Holidays" as their greeting it seems. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

::Well, we had the claims here earlier, so presumably they're in the archives. Give me awhile. [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] ([[User talk:Ethan Mitchell|talk]]) 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

==Christmas in the Colonies==
It should probably be mentioned that Christmas wasn't celebrated by the early american settlers, and that doing so was actually a legal offense. It should also be noted that at the founding of the country, Christmas was still not widely celebrated. This is significant because many of the arguments that it is tradition point to the early settlers and founders. [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit|Deliciousgrapefruit]] ([[User talk:Deliciousgrapefruit|talk]]) 17:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

== Tovalu's first bold edit on wiki ==
I removed the sentence about non-christians agreeing per <small>[[WP:UNDUE]]</small>. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name *prominent* adherents. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Among non-christians the "christmas controversy" is a non-issue, an extremely small minority of people may agree with the people who believe Christmas is being censored even though they are not christian but mentioning them is giving undue weight.

I also deleted an opinion by a nonnotable <small>([[WP:ONEEVENT]])</small> tree-owner. [[User:Tovalu|Tovalu]] ([[User talk:Tovalu|talk]]) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article a bit, but it still needs lots of work! Please help by checking if the the article is properly sourced and neutral. [[User:Tovalu|Tovalu]] ([[User talk:Tovalu|talk]]) 09:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

==Let's get Ron Paul in here==

His article "The War on Religion" is focused on Christmas, and it's relatively early (2003) in this controversy: http://www.waronchristmas.com/ron-paul-and-the-war-on-christmas/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] ([[User talk:Ethan Mitchell|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ethan Mitchell|contribs]]) 14:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Winterval ==

This is often cited as Birmingham City Council's attempt to secularise Christmas, but is overlooked is that it was a purely COMMERCIAL idea to promote trade and businesses in the city. I have seen programs on the BBC where theists have been allowed to claim that mention of Christmas was banned without any form of challenge at all, or any requirement to back up their claims.[[Special:Contributions/2.125.67.48|2.125.67.48]] ([[User talk:2.125.67.48|talk]]) 14:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)LanceTyrell

:I agree, but do you want to make some specific changes and have you sources for them? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

== POV ==

Much of this article seems to be written from the POV of those who believe that there ''is'' a "War on Christmas." There are numerous examples of "anti-Christmas" activities and how people have "fought back" against the War on Christmas. Of course this is connected to the belief of these people, and others, who believe that Christmas should be a publicly-celebrated, government-supported holiday. It generally discounts the beliefs of those who fell otherwise. There needs to be more inclusion of the view of those who do not believe there is a "War on Christmas," those who are accused of waging a "War on Christmas," and those who may in fact actually ''be'' waging such a war. [[User:Tad Lincoln|Tad Lincoln]] ([[User talk:Tad Lincoln|talk]]) 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

==Potential Featured Article==

This article would be a good candidate to be selected as a potential [[Featured articles|Featured article]], especially if featured during the "Holidays." This article would need to be designated as a [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]] first, which would be a good short term goal for this article. Most of the reference issues have been resolved. However, this article needs [[copyediting]], if anyone agrees with this assessment and would like to help with this process. [[User:Mistercontributer|Mistercontributer]] ([[User talk:Mistercontributer|talk]]) 03:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


== non-controversy Christmas cancelation ==
The problem is that the article isn't good. It is a hodge-podge of unrelated content.
Most of the content is about the US "culture wars", but the article seems to be unwilling to make this its focus. Instead there are long tangents on completely unrelated topics.
The "current controversies" section is ostensibly split into "government", "Christmas tree" and "retailers" issues.
Under "government" we find sections on the UK and South Africa, creating the false impression that this article somehow has an international scope. And what are the UK "governmental" controversies? Random local headlines from a few years back,
:''In November 2009 the city council of Dundee was accused of banning Christmas''
What this article is in fact about is the bitter cultural war in the United states with "New Atheism" on one side, and "Conservatives" on the other. There can easily be a "history" section about this, Anglo-Saxon puritanism and the like, but it is unclear how the following paragrph is able to contribute anything,
:''<small>There is also controversy concerning the precise date of December 25 as the presumed birthday of Jesus. December 25 was the date of the winter solstice in ancient times (before subsequent drift due to chronological errors in the Julian calendar eventually left the solstice on its present date of December 21.) As such, many pagan winter holidays occurred on this date, which marks the shortest day of the year and the point where the days become longer again. Many customs from these holidays, particularly from the pagan Scandinavian and Germanic celebration of Yule in northern Europe, are transparently present in later Christmas customs, suggesting that the date was appropriated directly from pagan customs and given a Christian veneer rather than being the true birthday of Jesus.</small>
This doesn't document a controversy at all, it is just a poor summary of the history of Christmas itself.
Christmas has been celebrated since the 4th century. Its present form more or less dates to the 19th. Nobody ever claimed 25 December was the "true birthday of Jesus", this "controversy" is just a strawman of what is really a battlefield of the multiculturalism/political-correctness debate in North America. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 14:29, 22 April 2013 (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)
::Thanks for your feedback. I agree this article needs more focus. One option would be to focus this article on Christmas controversies in the United States. If Christmas controversies exist in other countries, then Wikipedians from those countries may create separate articles to summarize those issues. -[[User:Mistercontributer|Mistercontributer]] ([[User talk:Mistercontributer|talk]]) 01:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


== [[Christmas truce]] <nowiki>{{redirect}}</nowiki> ==
=='Increasingly multiculturally sensitive'?==


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)
This is an unsourced and largely unverifiable view of society in the lead. I don't think that any Christian country is becoming more sensitive, just a few Red loonies at minor city councils and schools. But that's my opinion. Can you source yours? [[User:Indiasummer95|Indiasummer95]] ([[User talk:Indiasummer95|talk]]) 12:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
:'Red loonies'? Nice to see you be so clear about what you think. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 17:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


== Norway and Sweden ==
== Gregorian calendar ==
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 ==
This article roughly defines the "christmas controversy" as a reluctance/avoidance of the word "Christmas", the denial of a person's right to celebrate this holiday and the avoidance of any religious connection to the holiday. The Norway and Sweden examples in the section describing government controversy do not seem to fit this article. In both of those cases, the government seems to be saying, "you can celebrate this holiday if you want to, but you cannot compel public school children to participate in religious activities if they decline to do so." Nobody is preventing those who want to celebrate the holiday from celebrating it. They are simply saying that nobody can be forced to participate in a religious activity if they do not want to. Is this really part of the so-called "Christmads Controversy"? I propose removing these two paragraphs unless someone can show how they link directly to this article. I don't see how it is hostile to Christmas to simply avoid forcing someone to participate religious services if they don't want to. I will wait for comments before I delete those sections. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Elielilamasabachthani|Elielilamasabachthani]] ([[User talk:Elielilamasabachthani|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elielilamasabachthani|contribs]]) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
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)
<!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hello. I am the one who inserted these edits. The article start saying "The term "Christmas controversy" refers to the issue surrounding the celebration or acknowledgment of the Christmas holiday (or lack thereof)". In Norway/Sweden, there is much controversy on whether Christmas should be celebrated through school visits to churches. The alternative is a more secular holiday celebration in schools. I note in the history section, that there has been all kinds of controversies through histories; I don't see a reason to make the scope of contemporary issues too narrow; only to cover the typical American debate. [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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=586652807

Leave a Reply