This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Holidays: Christmas B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). Christianity: Christmas B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as Top-importance). Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I expect this is a long argued issue, but there should be a separate "War on Christmas" page. The fake "War on Christmas" has been a more constant right wing talking point in the U.S. than the "Birther" controversy and has been a part of arguably 5 presidential elections thus far. It is a prime example of a particular kind of right wing fake controversy where none exists and just this year "2019" the right wing in the U.S. including President Trump have attempted to expand the fake War on Christmas into a fake War on Thanksgiving. I am reading a tweet from Laura Ingraham right now that makes a fake War on Christmas claim. Because there is no reality to the "War on Christmas" as it has be used by Right Wing Media and President Trump, it does not belong on a page that discusses actual Christmas Controversies. Sjlebl (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are suggesting is not a move but a new article War on Christmas leaving s small section in this article as a summary of the new article. I can see some merit in that. Loved this.[1] Doug Weller talk 11:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Mess up pinging User:Sjlebl. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that could be seen as a move, as this article originally was "War on Christmas", and got moved to its current location eventually. I'd be a bit concerned about a WoC article at this point, as it seems likely to be a magnet for every current controversy anyway whether or not any source has described it as part of said war; it seems like one of those things that would end up being more opinion sources than fact sources, and frankly that sort of coverage is apt to do more to perpetrate the myth than to end it. But I'm not going to do anything to prevent its creation, just offering my cautions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]