Archives: /Archive 1, /Archive-S

I have removed the See also links to the wars on drugs, poverty, and terrorism, as they have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Instead I have replaced them with links to topics and individuals that are more in line with the article, and that would be of interest to its readers, such as the Christian right, and Bill O'Reilly. Avador 07:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been archived.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]

War: "War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organisations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians." So states the entry in Wikipedia.

So far as I can tell, there is little evidence to suggest a state of War exists against Christmas. Perhaps giving this entry a less strident title may help to tone down some of nonsense on this talk page? Markb 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article documents a specific PR campaign, as a proper noun. It's like the difference between "Prohibition of drugs" and "War on Drugs" -- the latter is a proper noun, and if the Wikipedia article is on the proper noun itself, the name should hold. Consider, for example, The People's Republic of China -- the name itself isn't an accurate reflection of China's style of government, but it is still the name of the article, because it documents a proper noun. Ken 01:16, 24 January 2006 (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]

So.... what remains non-neutral here? Let's get that tag off the front page, eh? A lot of changes have been made, especially with respect to Ford and early-20th-century anti-Semitism; are there any more assertions of non-neutrality, with specific changes that should be made? JDoorjam 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I'm not sure an agreement has been reached. One side just stopped reverting and left. But as I'm not disputing the article anymore, I'll remove the tag. keith 17:38, 4 January 2006 (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 controversy 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 (newspaper) 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]

• I just watched the video on the link that is given to where Bill O'Reilly says "happy holidays is fine." I have a problem with how this article conveys the way he said it. Before seeing the video I got the impression from the article that he basically gave up, and infact that is not what happened at all. If you watch it you will find that he says the statement as being no big deal and the liberal idea that he gave up the "War on Christmas" is absurd. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got this up and running. Right now it probably comes off as non-NPOV... it's really just hastily written so we could get the ball rolling. I feel like this is probably a good place to put the Ford stuff in context with the current "War on Christmas," as well as possible reference to Festivus and whatever else may be relevant.

• The phenomenon of the "secularization of Christmas" may be too vague to describe beyond individual perceptions of propriety. It will be easier to discuss the more specific "War on Christmas" in an encyclopedic manner as it is framed by verifiable sources. The problem we're having with everyone's little anecdotal contribution to this page isn't that it's off-topic, but that to put it here without attributing its significance to the topic constitutes original research. Making a separate article of the larger topic invites original research and ultimately constitutes an unsupportable POV. --Dystopos 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can understand that line of reasoning. However, let's see if it can stand on its own wiki-feet without becoming original research. If it starts getting funky and just isn't coming together, I will wholeheartedly endorse its AfDing. JDoorjam 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This dosn't need its own artical, instead this has to be what the current artical is recentered upon. I have always seen the 'War on Christmas' to be more about secularization and over imposing political correctness then some vast conspirecy, that this dude at fox news seems to be so obsesed about.

I do get annoyed at some of this stuff (especially the term 'holiday tree'), but to then conclude that i or most other people actually believe that there is some vast consipecy is rediculous. This is not a conspircy theory, but a trend. Also although calling this a 'War' may be POV, it is a commen title for this discussion and for that reason alone should be kept.--T-rex 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas

Very Controvesial topic that is shouldn't be included here on Wikipedia Wikizach 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every once in a while, somebody will jump on here and remove, without discussion, the sentence in the introductory section that reads as follows: "However, the vast majority of print and television media outlets are skeptical, calling it a conspiracy theory or a deliberate attempt to further a conservative Christian agenda." The explanation for the deletion usually is that there is should be sources referenced. I've added some sources in the article that, frankly, should not be included because I find them unwieldy and disruptive in the extreme. In fact, they've been added before and removed by others (while retaining the "offending" sentence) for that very reason. Since I'm guessing that they will be edited out again, perhaps we should keep this section on the talk page for the sources to be referenced to the hundreds of pundits and editorialists who are not merely "skeptical" but openly dismissive, of the very idea of a War on Christmas. Personally, I think if anyone doesn't know that the vast majority of the media has a problem with the existence of a War on Christmas, then they have no business editing this article at all. One should familiarize oneself with a topic on wikipedia before attempting to "improve" an article by simply snipping out details without attempting to discuss such editing on the talk page. At any rate, here are a few sources. I'll keep adding more if people want more. Meanwhile, please don't delete the sentence in question without discussion. Thanks. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512110188dec11,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed) (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/09/what_would_the_druids_do/) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901395.html) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901357.html) (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/columnists/jeff_gelles/13438813.htm) (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.tucker19dec19,1,3029880.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true) (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/nichols/index.php?ntid=65776&ntpid=2) (http://www.oregonlive.com/O/tvandmovies/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1134609912324511.xml&coll=7) (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/623814.stm) (http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/denton/wb/wb/xp-44936) (http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/1216kennedy.html) (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p20s01-coop.html) (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-morrison15dec15,1,1024810.column?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true) (http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051204/OPINION/212040331/1030/news08) Hal Raglan 00:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vast majority" has been changed to "many"; I find that somewhat deceptive but this edit is certainly preferable than simple deletion. Hal Raglan 00:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some unrelated made up stuff about charlton heston in this page

Fixed. Next time you notice something like this, if you like, you can fix it yourself - see Wikipedia:Revert for how. FreplySpang (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This title should be appropriately moved to Secularization of Christmas, which currenty redirects to this page. The term "War on Christmas" is coined by some as describing the secularization of Christmas, therefore "Secularization of Christmas" is appropriate per say. Agreed? If no objections I will perform the move. Darwiner111 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Since this area of Wikipedia seems to be inactive, I will initiate the move. Any opposing can revert the move and post underlying issues here. Darwiner111 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Change of heart, moved to Abolition of Christmas instead. Darwiner111 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You waited less than 24 hours, and then changed direction at the last minute. Give it to the end of the weekend, and then (IMO) you should move it to the Secularization of Christmas. JDoorjam Talk 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need admin help to move it to Secularization of Christmas, because that one exists with a history. I'd be happy to help in that capacity, but not before the end of the weekend. We aren't in a hurry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the information in the article should be moved/merged to a larger article called the Secularization of Christmas. But not to Abolition of Christmas. I see no consensus on the talk page that this particular phrase should be used instead of either the "War on Christmas" or "Secularization of Christmas". I also believe this verbiage should be removed from the opening paragraph of the article. I will revert it to the "War on Christmas". Further discussion/arguments regarding this issue can be placed here on the talk page.-Hal Raglan 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just noticed above that an earlier vote had decided that there should NOT be an article called Secularization of Christmas. Apparently, such an article was created and then voted to be deleted. This vote and deletion was completed on January 20, before any of the above comments were made. Can this vote be brought up again? I would definitely vote for a merge/move of the "War on Christmas" information to a larger article.Hal Raglan 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd created the secularization article, hoping that it would form its own thing that this article could then be merged into, but instead it became a sort of original research ashtray, so I proposed it for deletion, as I'd said I would before I wrote it if it went the wrong direction. Now that this article isn't being updated and tweaked every ten minutes as it was in December, I think it'll be easier to move and expand the article at "Secularization." I think we basically did just vote, and given that this thread has been open for two weeks now without anyone opposing, I think it's kosher to move it over to Secularization of Christmas. (Let's just make sure to do it quick, before a Brit comes along and moves it to Secularisation of Christmas"!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs)

Let's give it a day or two - if nobody opposes the move by this weekend, I'd be happy to help out with the administrative details. Maybe if the article is over there and expanded and respectable by next Christmas, it won't be quite as much of a controversy magnet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm working on the move now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not War on Christmas conspiracy theory? --Striver 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's about more than that. The idea is to make the article about the secularization of Christmas celebration in general, not just Bill O'Reilly's pet project from the last couple of years. Besides, you try to convince editors who believe that there really is a War on Christmas to agree to War on Christmas conspiracy theory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's moved, the lead needs some serious rewriting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs to be reworked. I thought the idea behind the name change was to make the Bill O'Reilly-promoted "War on Christmas" a mere subsection of a main article devoted to "The Secularization of Christmas". I had (stupidly) assumed that a draft version of the new article would have been written before the name change took place. Its been three days now and still only a very minor edit/rewrite has been made to the opening paragraph. Anybody reading the article as it is now will be seriously confused.Hal Raglan 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe the move was hasty. If it was a mistake, we can move it back, until someone gets a rewrite ready. There doesn't seem to be much intense interest one way or another, not like there was in December. I guess Christmas seems somehow passé in March. Personally, I don't have the time this week for rewriting this particular article. Do you, want to tackle that, Hal? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a first crack at reorganizing the article for future expansion on the whole topic (as opposed to just the Fox News campaign). I fished the old "secularization of Christmas" article out of the dustbin and used a few sentences, which I added to the main lead-in, and tried to push the Fox News stuff into its own section. Obviously I won't be miffed if it gets hacked to pieces by further edits; on the contrary, it needs it. I think what it may need now is a "History of" section... provided a history of commentary regarding the secularization of Christmas can be found. Admittedly, this is a tricky article, because it's hard to keep it away from original research. JDoorjam Talk 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, my knowledge of the historical background of this subject is too severely limited for me to attempt any major rewrite of the article. As you note, the editing frenzy this article suffered during the holiday season came to an abrupt end immediately after Christmas, so its probably okay to slowly but surely make attempts at any huge structural changes. JDoorj, your changes are a definite small step in the right direction. My hope is that the secularization/commercialization of Christmas, which should have numerous historical references to cite, will definitely dominate this article while the nonsensical Fox-propagated "War controversy" becomes a mere footnote/subsection.Hal Raglan 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me some hope. There should be plenty of sources to write a broad, academic, dare I say it encyclopedic article here. It'll be a real Christmas surprise when the gang comes back next December to fight over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs)

Why is this not the War on Christmas conspiracy theory article? --Striver 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! It DID exist! Why was the name changed? --Striver 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone has looked at the history of the holiday in the United States. For many years some branches of Christianity were opposed to Christmas, or to anyone celebrating the holiday. As late as the Civil War children were punished for skipping school on Christmas Day.
JesseG 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should be covered. --Ahruman 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fascinating subject. Christmas as a gift-giving holiday was a mercantile invention. Until about 1830-1850, New Year's Day was the big gift-giving holiday. Christmas as a business got a big relaunch from John Wanamaker, who needed a traffic-builder for his department store (the "Cathedral of Commerce", with a pipe organ) opened in 1877. If you're going to do work in this area, read a good biography of Wanamaker. --John Nagle 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has recently come to my attention that the holiday of Easter is also under attack by secularists, and the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg-hunts are being rebranded as "Spring" or "Holiday" activities. I have added an "Easter controversy" category, with citations, and am ensuing another move of this article to the appropriate Secularization of Christian holidays due to the fact that it appears Easter is also undergoing the same secularization. But I must sidenote, Christmas and Easter both already have secular aspects, thus perhaps another title is appropriate? Such as "Abolition of Christian holidays" or something similar? I hope this page isn't too dead for there to be any comments, but I will enforce the move in 24 hours if there are no solid objections, thank you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently up to date on whatever the media thinks is beign secularized today, but given my experience with this page, I would not "enforce the move" that quickly. Give it a little more time. Someone with a relevant opinion is bound to comment. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Except this article isn't about the abolition of Christmas. It's about the secularization of Christmas. I would suggest you write an article about the secularization of Easter, and if it's in such a similar vein to this article that they warrant merging, so be it. However, I think that the commercial nature of Christmas and its much larger profile, combined with both recent and older controversies and campaigns regarding its secularization, make it suitable to stand on its own. JDoorjam Talk 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the Easter section to the talk page for now, as it's not really related to the secularization of Christmas. I would much rather see this article expanded on its own and merged if appropriate than have this shoehorned in and then have the article moved. The first section also needs citations, and the second section says the bunny's been "widely renamed" but I'm not entirely sure that's a fair statement. Finally, the fact that "evidence of these incidents have only surfaced as recently as Easter 2006" may indicate that it's premature to have this content govern the course of this article. I would say that, if more of a national discussion emerges on the topic, it should have its own article and then we'll go from there; until then, this might be a little too original-researchy either on its own or within the Secularization of Christmas article. JDoorjam Talk 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Newtonmas" is original research—that article still exists. This is accurate information that will finally help to alert the Christian-American public of the anti-Christian events that are being conspired by the public "seperation of church and state" enthusiasts. The fact that Newtonmas can stand as an article for over 1 year and my "Easter controversy" section of barely two paragraphs can not, is an optimal example of the anti-Christian bias slant that is occuring everywhere in the United States. I am re-installing my paragraph because I believe it is useful and accurate information, and this article is presently the only place it can be put, I'm not starting a "Secularization of Easter" article. I also warn that if you revert my edits again, and then once again it will merit a block of your username for 24 hours due to violation of WP:3RR. Thank you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you read WP:ISNOT, and get a better grasp of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not intended to warn the people of America of impending doom. Your comment here and your entry into the article make it pretty clear that you have a strong POV slant on this issue. And I'm quite familiar with the 3RR policy -- I'm an admin. There's no need to threaten me. I don't see anything particularly wrong with Newtonmas, but I suppose that's an issue for the Newtonmas talk page, eh? Now, why don't you want to start a "Secularization of Easter" article? If you clearly believe the issue has merit, why not start one up? I feel that having this content on this page, for now, makes about as much sense as explaining Easter on the Christmas page -- they're related but still warrant separate articles. I'd request others weigh in on this issue as, you're right, two editors should not be the only ones providing input on what is clearly a controversial issue. JDoorjam Talk 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will move this page to Secularization of Christian holidays (and have prepared alternate openings to accustom to the name change) if there are no further objections. This discussion has been dead for several days thus I will perform the move if there are no objections. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE [please see my user page!] 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The "War on Christmas" was well publicized four months ago. I've heard nothing about the secularization of Easter, and that's less than a week away. So far, I haven't heard anyone except you, CiS, complaining about Easter becoming secular. While the example you cite in Spring Holiday are indeed silly, I think "Secularization of Easter" would be best as a separate article than as part of a larger article on "Secularization of Christian holidays". Powers 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter controversy

As recently as 2004 or 2005, many retailers, schools, universities, and other areas of public interest have resorted to politically correct euphemisms for the Christian holiday of Easter and its secular celebratory aspects. In many schools, the event calendar refers to Good Friday (celebrating the crucifixion of Christ) as "Spring holiday", and Easter Monday as "Spring holiday". Also, at many public areas of interest such as outdoor recreational facilities, activities are promoted as "Holiday egg hunts" or "Spring egg hunts" rather than the traditional "Easter egg hunt".

"Spring" Bunny

Also, the Easter bunny, a cherised mythical figure attributed to Easter, has been widely renamed to "Spring bunny", "Holiday bunny"[11], or even simply "The Bunny"[12] across various portions of the United States, particularly at public malls or parks. Evidence of these incidents have only surfaced as recently as Easter 2006.

User:CrazyInSane has written a new article on Spring holiday focussing on the secularisation of Easter. I believe that article should be merged here. This article being renamed the Secularization of Christian holidays as the syndrome is more generic than Christmas. Could cover All Hallow's Eve too ....--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention St. Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day. Thought the latter was less of a religious holiday in the first place. I would agree to merging my "Spring holiday" article with this article, given that this article be renamed to my proposed "Secularization of Christian holidays", thus I could do some major rewrites to incorporate my new article. We would need the support of other users first though. Also, I see that you're Australian so perhaps that's why you're so skeptical about the verity of my claims? Come to the USA for a few months. Secularity is the new do here— CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularity is old hat here in Australia - perhaps because of the wrong seasonality. This year we had Easter buns and Easter eggs (Autumn eggs and Autumn bunnies don't sound that appetising) on sale from 3 January! For political correctness we have the Easter Bilby!? Rabbits are of course a nuisance but for exactly the reasons they symbolise Easter, Bilbies are an endangered species. The Easter Bunny is of course pagan rather than Christian; the article needs expansion on that point. It is not the only Christian tradition that derives from pagan precedents eg Saint Valentine's Day. --A Y Arktos\^talk 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Bilby = awesome. JDoorjam Talk 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

——VOTE INACTIVE—— THE DECISION WAS TO OPPOSE THE NAMECHANGE TO SECULARIZATION OF CHRISTIAN (OR RELIGIOUS) HOLIDAYS AND THE MERGER OF THIS ARTICLE WITH SPRING HOLIDAY WITH A VOTE OF 4 / 2.

• Secularization of Christmas → Secularization of Christian holidays … Rationale: The topic is broader than just Christmas - many of the issues are the same when it comes to renaming Easter bunnies as holiday bunnies or spring bunnies.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if extension to other Christian holidays to be maintained/expanded. (Article's opening paragraph could still make the point that most debate centers on Christmas.)  Regards, David Kernow 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Christmas is in a unique position and deserves its own article on this topic. Easter is even more of a mishmash of pagan and Christian rituals than Christmas is, plus it's got Passover added in. Even the name Easter is pagan. It's difficult to argue for the secularization of Easter when nearly everything about it -- eggs, bunnies, the name, and Passover -- predate Christianity. What I would support is the creation of a new article called "Secularization of religious holidays" (note wording) that included a section on Easter, St. Valentine's, St. Patrick's, Hanukkah, etc., with the section on Christmas saying "Main article: Secularization of Christmas". Powers 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Powers. Let's take secularization of religious holidays as a whole in one article, with the Secularization of Christmas remaining its own thing. I agree that the topic in general can be expanded, but there is a lot of content here, and it can pretty clearly stand on its own. Let's not muddle the article by shoehorning the secularization of all Christian holidays in here; instead, let's address that in a separate space. JDoorjam Talk 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose– leave Secularization of Christmas as one article, leave Spring holiday (referring to the Easter euphemism) as one article with perhaps a retitle. "Secularization of religious holidays" is inappropriate because there are none other than Christian holidays that have been secularized or even have secular aspects. That's why we have "secular holidays" and "religious holidays" . . . Christian holidays sometimes mix them both. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Crazy --Aldux 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• more than happy with the broader "Secularization of religious holidays" as per response ro David Kernow below - yes I would envisage separate sections and Christmas of course within scope--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Retract my support until there is further investigation by alternate users into the matter. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to User:David Kernow - I believe that the intention would be expand on the issues as they pertain to other Christian holidays, many of the issues are the same for other holidays--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing but one long attack on Foxnews, with no analysis or presentation of facts by those who say Christmas is being secularized; very unbalanced. Judgesurreal777 02:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it ought to be Fair and Balanced! :-) I agree that it could use some centering. The problem is that this article was solely about the Fox News campaign for a long while, before being expanded to the general topic of the secularization of Christmas. (The other problem is that most of what O'Reilly and John Gibson said ended up being not entirely accurate, which provided a lot of fodder for inserting anti-Fox News content.) How, specifically, would you propose we proceed? JDoorjam Talk 03:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably start with a discussion of the trends leading to its secularization, what those who wish to make Christmas religious again want, what they did, and then their critics. A big subsection of it can be Fox news, as they have highlighted the long emerging issue for attention. :) Judgesurreal777 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes there is a trend, that it has been secularized, and that Christmas can be made religious "again". Even your brief statement shows how easy it is to have POV inserted into the article and why we must be cautious. =) Powers 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move all the Fox News stuff to "War on Christmas (Fox News)". --John Nagle 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is meant to be POV, that's the point, there is one side, that would dispute x y and z, but there are no examples of anyone saying they think Christmas has been secularized because of X Y Z. I'm not saying state it has been as fact, just need the other side. :) Judgesurreal777 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought maybe. But your example was POV because it didn't specify "according to some" or something similar. =) I was just pointing out how easy it is for it to creep into an article. In other words, the article should start with a discussion of the supposed trends leading to its supposed secularization... see what I mean? Powers 15:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! We should move on that, good place to start Judgesurreal777 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be neutral this article should be severely chopped up and shortened. This shouldn't be a history on secularization. We are talking about a specific metaphor used by specific people. The article should be called "War on Christmas" which should be defined as a "metaphor", first used by so-and-so and later used by so-and-so and so-and-so, to describe an "alleged" trend to secularize Christian holidays. There should then be a short list of worthy citable examples because yes some are out there. Then there should be a short list of reactions or responses from those opposed to the theory, statements from lawyers somehow involved or the ACLU, etc... Then related links to both the freedom of religion article and the separation of church and state article. The End. This article can be done respectfully and neutrally. I wouldn't mind giving it a shot but I am new here and it said to join the talk page before editing. Zimmypig 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a pretty clear vision. If you want to take a shot at it, I encourage you to do so; you probably should do it in a temporary subpage first, though, and have some other folks take a look at it before making large-scale changes to the main article. (A subpage is one like this: Secularization of Christmas/Zimmypig rewrite.) Powers 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though, actually, because / marks no longer move things from article space but simply give things titles with / marks in them, I'd recommend it be written at User:Zimmypig/Secularization of Christmas. The article used to be called "War on Christmas" and it was the general opinion the name should be changed to allow expansion of the term. One suggestion was to have this article document, if possible in a wP:NOR way, the secularization of Christmas (or at least of people who say it is being secularized), and then have War on Christmas be specifically about the Fox News campaign, or sligtly more broadly, the usage of that term that has sprung up in the past six years. JDoorjam Talk 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "Fox News Campaign" is, but if you mean to say the channel itself is propagandizing, there certainly is no evidence of this in the article's "Fox News Campaign" section, except for maybe the statistic that says there were 50-something reports, and this alone is not enough to save the "Fox News Campaign" section from being biased. Every time I read this article I find another reason why this is not a neutral encyclopedia article but rather a personal essay about one's opinions on conservatives, Christians, and Fox News. Like I said, we are talking about a famous metaphor "The War on Christmas", famous people who said it and evidence they have cited, famous people who disagree and reasons they have cited, maybe a little about the book by the same name, and that's all that's relevant to the metaphor "The War on Christmas". There already are pages about "Secularization", "Secularism", and "Separation of Church and State". The "20th Century" section content might should be added to the "secularism" page. Any insinuations that Fox News or it's employees participate in propaganda should be moved to some sort of "Fox News Conspiracy" page. I really feel a simple article like I described is the only way to get the "stop sign" off this topic. Today I will try to write my "rewrite page" like you suggested and see what you think. Zimmypig 12:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I was looking for sources and quotes for my attempt at revising this article into something not as horribly biased as the present "secularization of Christmas" article, I stumbled upon a website which had this article practically word for word. So it turns out whoever posted this "secularization of Christmas" wiki article plagiarized. It even has the same Macy's picture at the beginning. I wish I could find it again... Zimmypig 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably one of Wikipedia's many mirrors. Perhaps this one? There are plenty of others out there. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not it. It was seriously a completely independent commentary page. I'm kicking myself that I didn't bookmark it. Zimmypig 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this article was authored by many, many authors, I would highly doubt we plagerised them. More than likely it was the other way around (that is if they didn't credit WP). Until you can provide the site, we should keep it like this. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just ran about 20 Internet searches for signs of plagerism, and none of them led to anything. I stand by my revert. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to me that I put my revision on a test page before changing this "secularization of christmas" article, but then I found the original version of this plagiarized article. I figured this was a good enough reason to go ahead and replace this article so I will do so. I am new so I hope doing this doesn't get me in trouble, but I understand people can jump on and change it right back anyway, so I will go ahead and do it and not worry. Also, I thought I would explain my choices to leave certain things out in order to avoid people editting the page out of misunderstanding. I feel that since the subject of this article is theoretical in nature, as long as it is defined as a metaphor and not written as fact, it should be sufficient to list reasons the people who believe this theory feel the way they do, but it would be biased to cite bad examples purely to "remind" the reader that the theory is not fact. In other words, it does not serve the NPOV concept to include as a "specific incident", an incident that does not illustrate the "war on christmas". So my list of "specific examples" only shows examples that truly illustrate the "war". For example, a news story about a company changing it's policies about Christmas advertising is a good example, but citing the first Capital One example in the original "secularization of christmas" article (where Capital One never used the word Christmas UNTIL 2005) only serves to attempt to persuade the reader to not believe there is a "war", rather than simply citing the examples that the supporters cite, and letting the reader decide for himself. Also, in researching these examples and sources, I found that the "secularization of christmas" article author indeed altered the statements or facts involved to make them seem less convincing. In their unaltered states, these sources and examples are clearly more compelling. I think you will see what I mean. I am not a Christian, and I don't care what holidays you celebrate or what you call them, but I think the original article really set out to make all of these claims look stupid, and any openminded person can see that they at least have a LITTLE merit to them, regardless of whether or not they really have any effect on people's religious rights. I learned alot while researching and writing my first article revision, and I hope for the sake of the integrity of wikipedia and this new amazing concept of wiki that I've just discovered, that the fellow users of this community will see my revision as an impartial contribution to wikipedia. Zimmypig 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much for impartiality on the part of the editors...I didn't even have time to reload my browser and it's already back to the plagiarized version. Zimmypig 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above. I am very impartial. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]