This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-25. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-26. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives: /Archive 1

Everything has been archived. I did not have the patience to scroll through all the crap.--Tznkai 23:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Christian groups are trying to hide the facts that they are suing us over Christmas. I received threats to not put up Christmas lights on my house, or else I would be sued. Check court records and see how many lawsuits are filed over Christmas, then you will see that there is a real war on Christmas. Ironic that the vote to delete this article was made on Christmas, when most Christians are busy and not on Wikipedia to defend the article. You can really see the bias there by the Anti-Christians and their hate. --Charles Schram 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tznkai's conduct on the page is immensely puzzling. Without any prior contributions to the topic, and without discussing it with anyone, he comes in to a majorly contested topic, slaps a notice on it, begins to revert others changes, and archives the entire talk page, including currently ongoing discussions. That's simply unbelievable. Plenty of people contributed much more to the topic, and even if he believes he's more capable of bringing this topic to light than anyone else, he should still have the common courtesy to outline and discuss his proposed changes on the talk page first.

I'm therefore requesting that he remove the Major Edit notice, and instead try to talk everything over first. Flyboy Will 00:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three things I'd like to bring up.

1. The talk page was a mess of nasty fighting. My style of dealing with contraversy like this is to trash it, stop pussy footing around, and work.
2. WP:BOLD/WP:IAR
3. I don't think I'm God, in fact, I'm not even an admin. I am thus aware I am extremly revertable so you have little to complain about unless you're taking it personally.

In otherwords, if you want to complain at me for breaking rules of ettiquette, theres always my talk page and if you feel its needed WP:AN and WP:RFC. Keep it off the article discussion pages. If theres an ongoing discussion that I archived that still needs to be effected, GO AND GET IT.--Tznkai 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since ip users can't create new pages (like an AfD, for instance), I'm going to register a user, and create an AfD for this little bit of brain damage that passes for an article--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what's so bad about it, or something constructive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The war on christmas? laffo, lol, I just tried to create an AfD pag, only to find it already exists--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I think it's absurd too, but it's a bit of absurdity that is unfortunately notable in the US media right now. Is that not true? Can you give us a more intelligent reply than "laffo, lol"? Note that the previous AfD ended up as a Speedy Keep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody really move this to War on Christmas conspiracy theory? LOL--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 205-188-116-72 (talk · contribs), please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to give an AfD a try--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be foolish considering the large volume of edits made to this page and the already existing AfD, which resulted in a speedy keep. If you put it up again, I am sure many of the users who have edited this page will vote keep, citing reasons similar to the first AfD. Overall, it will be a waste of bandwidth. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a waste a bandwidth, a little more won't hurt--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now if this talk page hadn't just been archived I would already know that the last AfD was this morning--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept blame for the confusion, but not for the research--Tznkai 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why nonnotable made up things don't get article, but notable made up things do, but I am willing to ditch the AfD--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because its easy to collect facts about things that are notable. Who said what, what proof there is, etc. Its impossible to do it and verify with non notable "real" things. Like say, Me. Or you. Or billy Jo bob from way back when on the lane--Tznkai 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article needs a rebuttal section to deal with this whole Christian persecution complex BS? Maybe people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas because some of their customers are *gasp* not Christian and celebrate other holidays? Maybe the greeters at Wal-Mart say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because they're not Christian or they're not sure the person they're welcoming is? Maybe online stores have Holiday sections instead of Christmas sections because they're selling stuff either for other other holidays or that is non-specific to Christmas? This whole thing is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR WP:CITE. Go! Run! Come back with data, quotes, and hopefully a little less invective from you, and more from Those People We Cite.--Tznkai 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole damn article is just about Bill O'Reilly's POV anyway, I don't think it's unfair to include perfectly valid opposing viewpoints. This whole damn thing is just so ... manufactured. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Whether I agree or not, and I don't feel like sharing, you need to prove that its not just your thoughts.--Tznkai 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This guy features prominently in the article, and I don't see the reason why. I can't even find a single mention of a war on Christmas on michaelmedved.com. I would really need to see some serious sources before I can agree with Gibson and O'Reilley labeled as merely advancing a previously existing campaign. Flyboy Will 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

63.22.55.169 (talk · contribs) continues adding the Medved line back to the lead. Do we have a source?-Scm83x 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Michael Medved used the term "War on Christmas" back in 2001 in the USA Today. Page 17A for those who need more info. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! restoring to intro. Is there a ditigital copy availabile?--Tznkai 16:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... unsure about that. I'll peck around some and see what I can come up with. Be back in a few. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't going to buy it, but here is the free preview. I can get the full article other ways, but just for me. Sorry. Medved's 2001 Article. Hope this helps some. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is, "It's that magical, enchanted time of the year when busy bureaucrats across the country can find nothing better to do with their time than make war on Christmas." So, there you go. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the last bit is, "After Sept. 11, in memorial services, school programs and public statements by our leaders, it seemed that America transcended the hostility to religion that had come to characterize so many of our local and national bureaucracies. As the holiday season proceeds, the evidence mounts that the faith-based fervor that followed the national tragedy has begun to subside, and we've settled back to normal with our annual -- and utterly appalling -- war against Christmas." --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about right. I'll try my hand at the citation--Tznkai 16:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, it appears the term "war against Christmas" was used in this same vein back in 1994 in the Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado) and in 1996 in the Toronto Sun. I'm not sure what this does to the article though. And of course, like I've said before, the exact term "War on Christmas" was used in 1998 to describe the Puritans' attempt to remove the celebration of Christmas. But that is not really the same. Especially since this article was castrated of the stuff not pertaining to Fox News. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My brief spat with utter stupidity abided, looks like we need to do more digging--Tznkai 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point. Union Square being the most liberal place in the states is something I would object to as well. (see most college towns, and WPNOR. Furthermore, it leaves the reader to wonder at why its relevant, which is not obvious, but to point it out would be spoonfeeding the POV that War on Christmas is bullshit, putting us in a lovley catch-22.--Tznkai 00:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I used Xmas because I am lazy.--Tznkai 00:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good many do it just to take Christ out of Christmas. Chooserr 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that very much. Ever hear of Hanlon's razor? A variant would be: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by laziness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're about to go from amusing and off topic, to scary and off topic. Either way, WP:NOT saves the day! (Dear God, I made a Ryhme, How bad, I did a crime.)--Tznkai 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tznkai deleted the header image twice, and twice re-ordered the section order to his liking. Since User:Tznkai's opinion apparently prevails by default, let's try to find out why. I obviously disagree with him, and believe that

1. The Macy's Storefront image belongs at the top of the article as it clearly illustrated the topic in question, and has been added a while ago as a result of extensive discussions on the talk page.
2. The section describing the controversy is more important than the examples section. Flyboy Will 00:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove any further use of personal commentary or supposed sniping, whether at me or at anyone else. I will field these on my talk page or through arbitration, but article discussions are not the place for them. If you agree, please remove both your comment, and this response.

1. The macy's storefront image I addressed above. It does not illustrate a War on Christmas, it illustrates a sky shot of a winter day in union square with a big ass lights work and a wreath! Appropriate for say... the Christmas article when describing the consumerism of Jolly old Xmas, but it has no obvious usefulness here. Or so I think anyway.

2. Thats entirely possible, and I don't object to it, but as the organization stands now, it makes little sense to split general claims and specific claims with a length section of "recent usage". I have no objection to moving it down further.--Tznkai 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding general versus specific claims: The reason they're separate now is that the general claims used to be in the intro. It seemed much easier to illustrate what was meant by "War on Christmas" by summarizing some general claims. See, for example, this version. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could collapse the general claims section entirely since the new intro includes the vast majority of it.--Tznkai 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1]--Tznkai 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TZanki, you make many very good points and seem to be striving hard for neutrality. however you are doing so in a dictatorial fashion. And I'm just not sure you have the omniscience necessary to be a sufficiently benevolent dictator. The Macy's picture is indeed relevant, and a nice picture. Macy's policy is a much-discussed topic regarding Christmas traditions as well as on the specific blogs and quasi-blogs (media matters) that this article is half based on. O'Reilly has made a point of Macy's in the "war" as well as many others if you really feel the need to wade through the point. [2]. The shortcoming here is the article's explanation regarding Macy's seems to have gotten lost. keith 01:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its rather impossible for me to be a dicator as I have no greater power than any of you. As for the Macy's bit, thats an excellent explanation, and once its in the article (or hell, even a sufficiently breif caption) establishing its relvance, I will withdraw my objection and help clean it up. You know, thats the Wiki Way and all.--Tznkai 03:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thats a good caption. I'd like to move it to the "specific claims" section but first we should have, you know. The specific claim. Anyone?--Tznkai 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Macy's could get its own little section with all the hype about it. It's a microcosm of the subject. Things I have seen:

• Criticized for last year's "happy holidays" policy by Pat Buchannan, and Lou Dobbs (and undoubtedly praised by others).
• both criticized and praised for a this year's policy of allowing employees to use whatever greeting they choose.
• cited by O'Reilly as directly using the word "Christmas" in ads this year.
• gets flak from both sides over the prominence and number of actual uses of "Christmas" in ads (too much vs. not enough)

It's hard to find nice primary sources though since search engines get so hijacked on political topics. I just have lame secondary ones like [3] [4] [5]. keith 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are just weak secondary sources but point in interesting directions, especially when it comes to a certain POV around here that this is just a right-wing-fundamentalist-christian-foxnews theme.

• Lou Dobbs of CNN dissing the phrase "Happy Holidays" [6].
• A summary of some conservative Jewish views [7].

keith 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to just start chopping away at this, but I've some general observations: Ok, first off, two of the specific claims

• FOXNews.com branded their online store's Christmas ornaments "Holiday Ornaments", including one for the O'Reilly Factor. The naming has since been changed.

and

• The Republican National Committee posted a "Happy Holidays" message on its home page on 24 December 2005.

are not "specific claims" at all but specific examples not qualified as being part of the war on Christmas.

Second, four of the specific claims are just fraudulent accusations made by Bill O'Reilly. They should be in False accusations made by Bill O'Reilly.

With regards to O'Reilly, are there specific examples that he hasn't made up? If so, they should be included.

I guess what I am getting at is: after reading this article I am left with the question "is there concentrated and deliberate effort to secularize christmas or is it just more insane commentary from Bill O'Reilly"

Also, if someone has read John Gibsons book, maybe it would make a good starting point for the article.

--Uncle Bungle 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather introduce my eyeballs to salad forks than read that book. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think O'Reilly's charges were proven false; the sources themselves were biased.--Bedford 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, that doesn't change my forks/eyeballs commitment one bit. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entire "article" has turned into one giant anti-FOX rant, please get a hold of yourselves people, the smark in this room is thick enough to cut with a pen--Ytrewqt 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --Tznkai 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Festivus plugged in the article? Other blocks in the section talk about people and organizations that allege Christmas is being coopted in some way. I don't see how Festivus is in this article's scope unless someone has alleged that its popularity is related to the war on Christmas. 24.10.196.167 04:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, Festivus is out-of-place here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of opposition to a screenshot of The International Jew being posted there, so somebody finally found a less controversial topic to add, and a picture to place in there. I have no idea why that anti-semitic picture keeps getting removed all the time by the way. Up until the most recent Fox News debate, most of the pro-Christmas campaigns have been openly anti-semitic. Flyboy Will 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uuuuuh, you don't think it's way out of line to make a comment like that here? this is an ACEDEMIC source, we should be keeping it as free of smark as possible--Ytrewqt 04:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The International Jew keeps getting removed because it seems to imply that O'Reilly and company are somehow anti-semitic, I think is the reason. Meanwhile, another image being less popular is NOT sufficient reason to include an irrelevant image, however uncontroversial. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added the picture back with a specific disclaimer; I don't think anyone really believes Fox News is motivated by anti-semitism. Flyboy Will 04:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ytrewqt, I'm no academician when it comes to Christmas controversies, but most of the ones I'm familiar with were "those jews are replacing our Christ with their cha-noo-kas". Not that it matters, I'd like to see that whole section gone since those previous campaigns have very little to do with the current one. Also, smark is not a word according to dictionary,com and wiktionary,org, so I'm not sure how the article can be kept free of it. Flyboy Will 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PIc is there to imply this is anti-semetic, the picture has no reference or theword CHristmas at all, it is a cover. If this has nothing to do with that, then we must conclude it was added to skew the PoV. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the reason you see rascism everywhere you look, is becasue it's coming from YOU, smark off to that--Ytrewqt 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and in the context of this article it's impossible to ever be out of line. Flyboy Will 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am mystified by the word "smark". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Festivus campaign is a reaction against the commercialization of Christmas. It may be a stretch to equate it to the Fox theme but same goes for John Birch and Henry Ford. If you wish to narrow the article's scope those must be removed also. keith 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the commercialization of Christmas and the secularization of Christmas are apparently different things. O'Reilly at least is for the commercialization of Christmas, but against its secularization. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with more than a passing aquaintance in the History of Religion can tell you the commercilialization of all holidays started a long time ago before secularism had any crediblity--Tznkai 05:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mmhmm whereas a pamphlet written by a parnoid nutjob about a Jews conspriracy, and a campaign organized by mainstream media about the politics of secularists are also two different things. not to mention half a dozen other differences between (the latest incarnation of) the subject/introduction and the Henry Ford topic. If we are going to be strict on the subject all of a sudden I would like to first hear what that subject is supposed to be. keith 04:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, Keith. I'm going on the assumption that the article is about accusations that have been made that someone is trying to undermine Chritianity in the U.S. by messing with how we celebrate Christmas. Henry Ford made that accusation. The KKK made that accusation. Bill O'Reilly made that accusation. The joke writers for Seinfeld didn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we need to keep that section, if at all, extremly breif. This article seems focused on the current purported War, not on the old ones. A breif historical context may be useful, but an exhaustive essay on pro christmas movements this is not--Tznkai 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice effort "GTBacchus" but undermining "Christianity" is not the point of the article nor the charge. I doubt Medved's concern stems from protecting the new testament from being changed by some kind of ACLU lawsuit. Same for The Sun. Try culture as says right there in the intro. Which also applies to commercialization and probably other angles as well for many complainants herein, if not O'Reilly himself. But hey, I'd love to narrow the article to just the O'Reilly theme as I've said many times. keith 05:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undermining christianity the supposed end goal of the War on Christmas, I think its involved.--Tznkai 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not getting that from Medved's words...

A Jewish Case For Honoring Christmas 1/5/05

As an observant Jew, I celebrate Hannukah at home, not Christmas, but I still take yearly delight in the lights and the carols, the parties and department store displays, the sense of warmth and faithfulness filling every corner of our country. Christmas season serves as the ultimate rebuttal to the politically correct nonsense that says we lack a single American culture, and instead host many diverse national cultures occupying the same space. Christmas, however, connects people of every color and ethnicity, and binds this generation to the past through family and communal traditions. Even for an outsider like me, this is infinitely preferable to the confused, flavorless, mixed messages that the multi-culturalists want to foist on an unwilling populace. Better to celebrate the glue that keeps the country together and to express gratitude for the generous Christian heritage that’s made America the best place on earth for Jews — and everyone else.[8]

keith 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to challenge this article's claimed neutrality as long as it so prominently makes the implication of a connection between the actual "war on christmas" complaints and the differently-named anti-semitic message fom 80 years ago. That garbage deserves to go back to the blog it was undoubtedly lifted from. Suggesting Guilt by Association is not acceptable in an encyclopedia article. This complaint has been made repeatedly by myself and others, and the prominence of the section keeps getting increased while the counter-arguments get minimized. If you want that crap and the modern stuff in the same article you need a reliable source tying them together so that that the accuracy and bias of that "expert" can be criticized. keith 05:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific addressable complaint, or perhaps a reasonable compromise of how to fix it?--Tznkai 05:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

either the removal of Ford or real live sources describing how the Ford thing is similar and deserves to be in an article named after a Fox News theme. Henry Ford didn't use the same name so it requires the application of expertise to tie them together, not original research, and not blogs. Absolutely noone looking for Henry Ford's anti-semitic writings would search for "War on Christmas" so it doesn't belong here on its own.

Alternatively we can expand the scope of the article to the point that it would include general classes of campaigns as I have been trying to do, but that also requires a neutral title. This has all been discussed the past few days. keith 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict (sorry for repetition): I think his complaint is quite specific and addressable. Keith (correct me if I'm wrong) is saying that it's very prejudicial to put anti-semitic screeds under the same heading as someone that you're supposedly not trying to tar with an anti-semitic brush. Eventually, we need at least three separate articles here, and they can link to each other with hedges like "Certain sources [insert citation here] have linked the current "war on Christmas" controversy with such-and-such." Meanwhile, putting all of this stuff in one article together makes all kinds of weird implications. The very specific and addressable complaint is that the article "prominently makes the implication of a connection between the actual "war on Christmas" complaints and the differently-named anti-semitic message from 80 years ago." The way to address that is to avoid "prominently making the implication", like avoiding the image of a title page reading "The International Jew". That image adds very little except for a strong implication of guilt by association. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case I'd like to eliminate the section as it stands and put a new lead section establishing the context of the War on Christmas. Then we can point out its not the first, nor likley the last accusation of religious persucution against Christmas. I think it may also be prudent to point out that the conspiracy theory that abounds is aimed at secularists (code word for aithiests to many, but thats a seperate debate. Thoughts?--Tznkai 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful for everyone to read the article where I believe most of us were firsts introduced to the Ford and Birch references and see whether you think the writer's research is persuasive enough to merit the references. It is "How the Secular Grinch Didn't Steal Chrismtas" in Salon by Michelle Goldberg. She writes in part:

"To compare today's "war on Christmas" demagogues to Henry Ford is not to call them anti-Semites. Rather, they are purveyors of a conspiracy theory that repeatedly crops up in America. The malefactors change -- Jews, the U.N., the ACLU -- but the outlines stay the same. The scheme is always massive, reaching up to the highest levels of power." Lindmere 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think salon is a compelling source and we can include the analysis and leave the details to wikilinks?--Tznkai 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this damn thing a bit more, and it became clear to me that the vast majority of the text in here is completely unnesecary. The article is on a "war on Christmas", not "Christmas-Related Controversies", or "Desecularization of America". Neither side is denying that a certain store isn't saying Merry Christmas, and that's not even the point. The whole claim is that there is a WAR, that there is a concentrated effort, that there is a link between all these things. Fox News and a few other conservatives are claiming that a secret ACLU plot funded by George Soros changes lyrics in high school plays and so on.

Thus, my suggestion is this. Cut down most of the article, and only keep the header and some of the Recent controversy / United States content, and end with that, while many of the examples brought up by FN are true, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence showing any concentrated liberal effort, or in fact any link between any of the examples brought up by the commentators. That's ALL this article deserves.

And then someone who cares enough for this can create a Desecularization of America, and list away Henry Ford's idiocy, grocery store down the corner wishing you a Happy Jihad Day, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboy Will (talk • contribs)

Is there anyway everyone could hold editing for a few minutes while I make the page conform to ref/note citation style? -Scm83x 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flagit in use {{inuse}}--Tznkai 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I think Ill wait til the debate over Specific claims section is over, as Flyboy Will (talk · contribs) just deleted it, and I certainly don't agree. -Scm83x 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whee. This is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. I'll let you guys sort this one out. I have to go install some smoke detectors.--Tznkai 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a war on Christmas?
• If there is a war on Christmas is a liberal plot?
• Why/when did the War on Christmas contraversy begin?
• What do the talking heads media commentators think about the War on Christmas/
• What is the big picture/historical context?

Just a thought--Tznkai 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the section of specific instances to the article, except for these two, which seem to be unsourced:

• In Greencastle, Indiana, the holidays of Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and the federal holiday of Christmas Day were removed from the city calendar. The first two were replaced with the term 'spring holiday', and Christmas Day was replaced with 'winter holiday'. On 22 December, 2005 the original names were re-instated with a 4-0 vote after nearly 200 people, some singing "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", filled the city council's chambers protesting.

• During the San Diego annual "holiday festival" on 19 December, 2005, a group called the "Jesus Christ Dancers" was banned due to the fact t-shirts reading "Jesus Christ" were worn. A city staffer prevented the group from performing moments before they were to go onstage, because the city was not to "promote religion". Other festivities in the "holiday festival" included the playing of non-Christian religious music, the Hawaiian "prayer to the gods", and the sponsorship of a menorah-lighting ceremony. This promotion of other religious activity was identified as discrimination against Christianity by the attorney for the dancers, and a lawsuit was filed. On 22 December, 2005, San Diego city mayor apologized for the ban, yet the lawsuit continued. A second apology was offered by the mayor on 23 December, 2005.

What's with removing that whole section, anyway? I think it illustrates the conflict that really is going on, even though it fails to present clear evidence of an underlying plot by specific liberals. Comments? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you'd have to ask Flyboy Will. I think its notable that there *is* undisputed incidents of the removal of the word chirstmas. The commentators aren't making that part up. Whether its cooincidental or a plot is something else entirely.--Tznkai 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major problems, not the least of which is the highly biased article title. Can people step back from the hysteria and try to write encyclopedia articles? DreamGuy 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. --Tznkai 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===United Kingdom=== In the United Kingdom, tabloid newspapers have also begun coverage of "The War on Christmas" accusations in recent years. In the UK, the issue is often conflated with conservative criticism of immigration and human rights.

* In 1998, Birmingham city council began using the umbrella term Winterval to describe all festivities taking place around the middle of winter. Despite making clear that the term explicitly included Christmas "at its heart" and the Council's Christmas celebrations were unaltered, the media portrayed Winterval as "a way of not talking about Christmas".

* In [2004] The Sun launched a similar campaign in England called Save our Christmas to "defy" politically correct "meanies". The campaign served "offenders" a behavioural order called CRIMBO, an acronym for Christmas Must Be Observed and a play on words of ASBO. ^[10]

===Knights of Columbus=== Since the early 1980s, the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus has conducted a "Keep Christ in Christmas" program for Catholics, including publishing Public Service Announcements for video outlets. ^[26] They campaign to stop the commercialization of Christmas in an effort to save Christian tradition.

keith 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed the bit about the "moral panic". Maybe it's not relevant to that one specific quote but it is relevant to the article at large. The people behind the War on Christmas are trying to manufacture a moral panic. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes I did. it was in the middle of a sentence attributed to salon.com about the conspiracy theory, but the linked article says nothing remotely related to moral panic. pleace cite who does. keith 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) p.s. you can get the full text of the article from google's cache.[reply]

I think citing the page moral panic is enough. By the definition given there it's obvious that it relates to this whole War on Christmas thing. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it should be made more clear! I'm not sure exactly how to fit this in. Conservative opinion + Moral Panic = higher viewership + Republican votes!

Also, I just want to point out that this article had recently been about the Fox Theme primarily, but it was changed to be more encompasing, due to individuals fearing direct association with Fox News might deligitimise the war. --The intro had started out "The war on Christmas is a current fox news theme"... I think this article is now starting to move to be from a Fox News perspective, with criticism on the side. I think it still follows NPOV policy, but somehow has a different POV. I liked it better before, but I'm too lazy to endlessly participate in the revert nonsense. I care about this article, but only to a degree!--sansvoix 08:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV aside, the intro seems quite awkward now.--sansvoix 09:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on lead changes

Per comment of sansvoix (talk · contribs) above, I reworked the lead. Here are some of the things I did and why:

• moved disagreement sentence to top paragraph to clarify scope and define legitimacy clearly
• 2nd para: simple language changes, to make things less awkward
• 3rd para: rm Merry Christmas from the list, as this discusses what the "liberal elements" are doing to war on christmas
• 3rd para: 'dropping or replacing' more accurate than 'use or lack of use' and also more fluid
• 3rd para: Christmas tree->Holiday tree is redundant since we already mentioned replacing Christmas with Holiday

-Scm83x 10:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article no longer states that a major incentive for fabricating the war may be to drive up ratings (sensationalism, etc). It might seem obvious, but I think it still should be said.--sansvoix 08:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Section Stub banner, as I find the section to be very interesting, but I am sure there must of been many other similar Christmas campaigns out there. I have added a popular culture paragraph, inserting in the famous festivus Seinfeld episode, which is a result of the U.S anti-commercialisation of Christmas campaigns, such as the Knights of Columbus which is the only one currently mentioned. It would be great if this section could be expanded further!--sansvoix 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:keithd has been editing to limit this section to only criticism of Fox news by the website salon.com. I think it should be open, and not slanted as criticism (as of now, the section is not even criticism, as Keithd's title suggests!) Are there any opinions on this?

No I am attributing the "link" made to the sourcewho made it. If you have other sources who made the same points about fox being similar to other campaigns please provide them. Providing information that you think is related based on your own expertise is original research. keith 02:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No what you are doing is cutting your losses, and limiting the section to so-called "criticism" by salon.com, while adding a statement at the bottom defending fox news. I fail to see how a section on U.S. Christmas Campaigns is less valuable then a section on three statements made by one particular source. Of course all the sources should be cited, but it is over-the-top to put the source in the section title! Not to mention it works to devalue the historical information within, and impede any further growth of the section, which was shown by your recent deletion of my anti-commercialisation of christmas campaign addition. --sansvoix 03:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well that's quite a machiavellian agenda I seem to have there. Looks to me like the title of the section describes the section's content. I wanted to put a nail in a board so I used a hammer. You are free to add other information to the article though I suspect it will return to a releveance argument. However I fail to see the burning need to have knights of columbus, salon.com, and seinfeld in the same section. But don't use returning them to the article as a pretext to hide the fact that it was salon.com making those allegations not the wikipedia. That was sourced information you removed which is why I reverted. keith 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the irrelevant original research you are so obsessed with. But don't take that as support for the addition, I simply don't care to fight over unimportant material while factual cited information about salon.com is getting tossed out with the bathwater. keith 05:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding anything new, other than a some format. I am protecting the section you wish to chop down and paint in a particular light. But the point here is your edits seem to frame this as a just another liberal criticism. It has long been, and should continue to be a history section on related campaigns in the United States. Salon.com is not the primary source for the any of the information at hand, and doesn't need a predominant role. In fact, painting this as an argument by salon.com works to deligitimse the historical facts laid out.--sansvoix 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I only added the sourcing information Lindmere gave here on talk [9]. It's ironic when I add the opposing pov's material and get reverted, but not amusing because of my time wasted. fyi the Seinfeld addition was also mine originally but got removed by the 5+ people who disagreed with me here on talk. Enjoy it while its up there... We are just going around in circles. keith 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I am amused that apparently well-researched historical material is labeled as "liberal criticism." It is legitimate to argue that the history of other "defense of Christmas" campaigns does not belong here, or to counter Goldberg's arguments, but simply pionting out that Salon is "liberal" is not an argument. I think Keith did a nice job of summarizing Goldberg's research. Lindmere 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I was going to 'complain' that a lot of good material has been cut from the article, making it resemble a POV article focused on the Fox campaign in 2005 (Americentric, ignoring historical precedents, etc.)

However, a lot of editors seem to think that this article, despite the title, is explicitly about said Fox campaign.

A proposal: split into a parent/child article, one about War on Christmas in general, dnd one concerned specifically with the Fox campaign.

--Vodex 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed exactly the same above, a week or so ago: that this article be chiefly about the recent campaign, since that's what most people will be looking for regarding "war on christmas", and that we create a Secularization of Christmas or Opposition to Christmas or similar article to discuss both the recent news campaign and comparable historical events. -Silence 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, I would suggest doing the opposite (and I did awhile ago too). Cut the Fox News POV ranting down to one section and include more of the history. The Puritans attempts, the 1920's stuff, the John Birch stuff, the Knights of Columbus stuff with specific examples (BTW, "Examples" do not mean every instance), the Fox News stuff, Other uses, etc. The Forking POlicy doesn't really agree with splitting articles just to make one have POV and the other NPOV. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly prefer this, but that is what the article was closer to just a few days ago. Would attempts to redress the POV just get reverted again? --Vodex 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested making "War on Christmas" a fork, so I don't get where you got that claim from. My suggestion is to make "War on Christmas" a daughter article of a general article about "opposition to Christmas", so we can discuss both the recent phenomenon in a comprehensive article and the general trend of anti-Christmas sentiment and claims of anti-Christmas sentiment throughout history, without confusing these two distinct topics by saying that they're all part of the "War on Christmas", and without squishing so many distinct and complex topics into one article that there's no room to present important information on the instance that started this whole thing.

The problem is that it's POV to label every instance of secularization or opposition to Christmas as part of a cohesive "war on Christmas". It's not in any way POV to have an article about the relatively recent media phenomenon which goes by the name "War on Christmas", since that's the name that's by far in the most wide usage by both people who believe there is a war and people who don't believe there is one; but we certainly can't conflate every instance of anti-Christmas (or claimed anti-Christmas) behavior into the singular "War on Christmas" article! To say that the Puritans banning Christmas is part of a "war on Christmas" is POV. To say that every claim that Christmas is becoming too secularized is a claim that there is a "war on Christmas" is POV. To put all of those claims and events into an article called "opposition to Christmas" or similar would not be POV, and my suggestion indeed mirrors yours exactly in that respect: I believe that the recent FOX media circus should be a single section within a general article on "opposition to Christmas" or similar, because there are clearly similar elements and because an article on the broader topic is merited by the number of noteworthy individuals and movements that have made such claims. However, apparently the two points where we disagree are on these matters:

1. You apparently think that we should have all instances of events similar to the modern "War on Christmas" in an article called War on Christmas, even though only some of them have actually been called that; connecting the temporary Puritan outlawing of Christmas to modern claims of Christmas secularization is surely a recent occurrence, and no historian would just consider them part of a single, unbroken chain of events called the "War on Christmas" just because they have to do with Christmas. Thus, if the article's topic is to be expanded from being about the "War on Christmas" media spectacle to being about "Opposition to Christmas" or "Secularization of Christmas" in general, the article's title should be expanded accordingly.
2. You apparently think that there isn't enough information on the recent "War on Christmas" events to merit a distinct article. I disagree with you on this too. It's a noteworthy phenomenon with plenty of interesting information, enough that it should have a distinct article called "War on Christmas"—and the main "opposition to Christmas" article should, in its single section about the modern "War", providing a {{main|War on Christmas}} link at the top of that section for people who want to read further on the matter! Likewise, a disambiguation notice can be put on the top of the War on Christmas article saying something like "This article is about the recent 'War on Christmas' phenomenon. For historical opposition and allegations of opposition to Christmas in general, see Opposition to Christmas". That way we don't conflate all the topics or make POV claims that a whole series of claims are all part of a unified "War on Christmas", but we do provide all the information necessary in an organized and comprehensive way. And the "opposition to Christmas" article could even have a brief section discussing opposition to Christmas in popular culture, things like How the Grinch Stole Christmas! :) -Silence 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to the Puritan's being part of the "War on Christmas", on Sept. 27, 1998, Sandi Dolbee of the Copley News Service used the exact term "War on Christmas" to describe the Puritans' attempts to remove Christmas celebrations, so if you want to work with precedents, the Fox News stuff came later and therefore their we would need to have a War on Christmas (Puritans) and War on Christmas (Fox News Channel), as well as other articles on other "Wars on Christmas".

There probably is enough info to write a separate article about the new stuff, but having one POV article as a daughter of a broader article isn't really good. We should try to avoid it if we can. Any "War on Christmas" needs to have background and history, and this is a fine article to show the past examples of the alleged "War on Christmas". That's all I'm saying. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The topics in that section, from Festivus to Henry Ford, should not be credited in writing to any particular intermediate source. It is irrelivent that salon.com was one of the oultets that published the connection... as they are a SECONDARY source commenting on a historical event. Painting documented history as an argument made by certain liberal organisations is compleatly POV, history is history, regardless of who talks about it.--sansvoix 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ..The section should be reverted to the previous version.[reply]

For the Birch society, Hubert Kregeloh is the source. For the anti-semetic writings, Henry Ford and his newpaper is the source... Salon.com IS NOT the source for historical events. Salon.com can be put in references as a Secondary source. I don't know how clear this needs to be made!--sansvoix 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The topics of those primary sources are not the subject of this article. I know this because I looked at this article's title and introduction. Attempts to generalize the topic have been broadly opposed. keith 09:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. But I have not heard of a policy to tie everything in with Fox News, this article isn't even about the T.V. station! I really must protest the constant reversions which deminish the section!--sansvoix 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• On the December 19 edition of Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly Flip-flopped and declared "Happy Holidays' is fine" [10]

grazon 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You might be looking at an old version of the article. That has already been tweaked. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is Enough! BACK OFF NOW! --Bumpusmills1 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]