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).

This article was nominated for deletion on 25/8/2006. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

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

Best regards from Motherload Christmas

...and yes I almost forgot: Please be a darling and have mercy on my spelling and grammer, english is not my first languege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.254.31 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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? FangsFirst (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. HappyJake (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ginnna 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? 66.92.68.103 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Christmas-related controversy? Suggest this at Christmas/holiday season, not here.. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the history of Christmas... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.136.203 (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have 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. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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'. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely one-sided. It frequently cites the American Family Association, which is as far from a 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. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Holidays" 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. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.204.16 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 atheists and Muslims, when there is only a single citation for each. I don't want to give undue weight to the few scattered atheists who have bought into this.

What do you think? ---Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 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. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.48.194 (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. ADM (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.99.81 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.69.254.76.77 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.42.11 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I use a false tree then. Bahahaha216.185.250.92 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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... Farsight001 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. 71.84.126.174 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.--RLent (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.184.105 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.66.154 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.121.99 (talk • contribs)

Whaaaat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.5.145 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is over that-a-way. Powers ^T 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 verifiable, I'd say any attempt at deleting the article will wind up in the keep column. That would be my vote, anyway. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Powers ^T 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Meservy (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Шизомби (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.24.211.191.103 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? --ChasFink (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. 159.105.99.83 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1][2][3][4] ADM (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 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 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? Cnilep (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[5] 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. Шизомби (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas controversy → War on Christmas — 'Christmas controversy' is not a term in use, whereas 'War on Christmas' is, widely and frequently. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [6]

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'.Sumbuddi (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Powers ^T 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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'. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]