Talk:Christmas controversies/Archive 3

"Winterval"

I have removed this section about Winterval in Birmingham in the UK as it isn't true. So much of this article is rubbish but life is too short to sort it out. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/christmas2006/story/0,,1967367,00.html Cxk271 13:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Too Silly

I know, I know. I'm biased about Christmas. But for pete's sake, it's CHRISTMAS. I just looked up the definition in the dictionary. "The annual Christian festival celebrating Christ's birth, celebrated on December 25." Of course, the media and large companies take advantage of a gift-giving season, but it's hardly a Christmas Controversy. I don't really see how this article has become what is -- to me, it seems like having a wikipedia article about whether or not the sky is blue. Can somebody please enlighten me? Thank you. Bonjour123 04:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. People in Western societies have it too good. What happens when they have it too good? They find sh*t to complain about, and this applies to both sides. 11:09, 30 October 2007

Questions the article should be able to address

• 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?
• The impact of companies like Coke Cola and the creation of their version of Santa Claus towards making the holiday more about consumption then religion.

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

I think the article should identify what in the world a "liberal plot" is before it can address the question of whether the "War on Christmas" is, in fact, a "liberal plot". Such a question sounds suspiciously like the kind of demagoguery one finds on Conservapedia. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article also needs to address another issue that seems to be ignored, though I don't know how it could be documented. I worked at Sears back in the 1980s. It wasn't a company policy, per se, but employees tended to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" not because of political correctness, but because it was shorthand for "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year". I think a lot of people have tended to ignore the fact that people said "Happy Holidays" for a long time (I even remember Christmas cards from before then that said it). Squad51 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See also section

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)

Archived

Everything has been archived.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

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)

Actually, I'm anti-Christmas and Christian. Matthew's Gospel says that adding to the bible is just as sinful as taking away from the bible, and nowhere in the bible are we told to celebrate Christ's birth. Christmas today is wrongly seen as Christian because of the influence of Catholicism and Big Business. --Knowledge-is-power 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm anti-...Christian" Im a Christian. And this next part amuses me for that reason (your anti-christianity)...

"Matthew's Gospel says that adding to the bible is just as sinful as taking away from the bible, and nowhere in the bible are we told to celebrate Christ's birth." Youre obviously implying that we are adding to the Bible by celebrating Christmas. But were not. How are we adding to the Bible by celebrating Christmas?

Going back to your anti-Christianity... If you dont believe in the Bible, than you cant quote it for an argument (which you just did above), because you dont believe what it says. THAT is what amuses me.

"Christmas today is wrongly seen as Christian because of the influence of Catholicism and Big Business" Hey, if its not a Christian holiday, then why is it called Christmas in the first place? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All the better for it not being a Christian holiday, it's just clearly derived from the pagan celebrations of Gauls, Germans and Romans. Hell, the tree worshipping, does that sound like Christians to you?

I laugh at the hard right wing evangelicals complaining that their beloved little Christmas has been turned into a materialistic frenzy. Too bad! We prefer the materialistic frenzy to listening to a bunch of hypocritical self serving religious authorities anyway.

There was no Bible to add to or remove from when Jesus was alive. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Knowledge-is-power meant that he was a Christian that is anti-Christmas. Madlobster (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Move/retitle?

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)

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)

Tznkai's Comes Out of Nowhere!

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)

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)

Ok, enough of this

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Rebuttal section?

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)

I work at a grocery store myself, and I've had more people tell me they don't celebrate Halloween more than those that don't celebrate Christmas. But you don't see any retaliers treat Halloween as a four letter word. I mean, if we can't say Christmas because not everyone celebrates it, then let's get rid of Thanksgiving (offensive to Native Americans and Canadians who have Thanksgiving in October), Halloween (offensive to fundamentalist Christians who think it's a "devil's holiday despite the fact that it's All Saints Eve), Easter (I would argue an even more religious holiday, but again, retailers have no trouble saying Easter in ads), and so on. Also, "holiday" doesn't neccesairly work either as Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in celebrating any holidays. I'm not a religious person by any means, but I still prefer that my favorite holiday, Christmas, not be treated like a four letter word.76.177.160.69 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

75% of US adults identify themselves as Christians. You've probably heard that. So, I ask, what's wrong nowadays with being in the majority? I promise you I as a Christian wouldn't be offended if somebody at the Wal-Mart in a mostly-Jewish America said, "Happy Chanukah." I may or may not say, "Thanks, though I'm Christian, I hope you have a happy Chanukah." It might get annoying, but I certainly wouldn't expect the rest of the country to quit wishing each other the season's greetings publicly. Maybe the "Happy Holidays" thing is the BS you're talking about. Bonjour123 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

Well, I admit I'm not good at finding documented sources at all, but I can at least show it's not just Cyde's thoughts. It seems to me that "Happy Holidays" is meant as a sign of respect to all of the many holidays during this period, including New Year's Day; not to secularize or attack Christmas. Organous 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Medved

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Xmas display picture!

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)

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

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

not true at all, please do not make any edits on this topic untill you actually know what you are talking about, see Xmas --Lehk 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I personally use Xmas because it is actually more correct and validated by historical record. In more pious epochs, people shrank from using or writing the Name of Jesus Christ in full, and grew accustomed to the Greek practice of abbreviating it to IHC XPC, whence the XP monogram (surely the basis for the name of Microsoft Windows XP), and the originally very respectful short forms Xtian, Xtianity and Xmas.

Which goes to show, the "War on Christmas" is a load of bullshit.

Nuttyskin 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image and Order of Sections

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

some more stuff

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)

specific claims and other comments

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)

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

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

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)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Tznkai 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Festivus?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

NPOV

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Forest and the Trees

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)

ref/note

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)

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

• 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)

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)

Specific instances section

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)

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)

Major problems

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) Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Tznkai 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

Reason for being

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)

U.S. Christmas campaign history section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Suggestion: article split

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Salon.com IS NOT the primary source (history section)

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.

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)

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)

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)

how to describe this better

• 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)

• 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)

Secularization of Christmas

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)

• • 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)

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)

War on Christmas

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

Vast Majority of Media

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)

"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)

Secularization of Christmas merged here

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

Nonsense

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)

Appropriate Move

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).

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).

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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

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

History of Christmas in US

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)

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

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)

Move to Secularization of Christian holidays

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)

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)

(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)

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)

"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)

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)

Now that Newtonmas no longer has its own page, I believe it would be wise to have a small reference here, maybe listed as a secular scientist proposal?137.94.81.74 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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"[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406], or even simply "The Bunny"[11] 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.

--- Sorry, ad to have a bit of a laugh at that "celebrating the crucifixion of Christ". What sort of Christians "celebrate" Christ's death? Good Friday used to be a day when people went to church top say prayers at the stations of the cross. Any concept of celebrating, easter eggs, ester bunnies etc. are based on Pagan spring festivals, so the name isn't really all that inaccurate. 217.196.239.189

Merger of spring holiday and Requested move to Secularization of Christian holidays

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)

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)

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)

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

Requested move to Secularization of Christian holidays – INACTIVE

---

——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)

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)
• Support as nominator. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose as per Crazy --Aldux 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

Horrendous article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

the solution is simplicity

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plagiarism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

my revision

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)

changed back quicker than it could have been read

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)

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

You have yet to prove that the article is plagiarized. Even if you didn't bookmark the site in question, you should still have it in your browser's history. -- MisterHand 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

The whole article is POV as it does not make clear that Christmas was a Pagan holiday nicked by the Christians. Perhaps this should be reflected somewhere. I might even be inspired enough to find a reliable source (if one exists). Stephen B Streater 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If your concerned about their being a Christian POV slant in this article, I disagree. There is a liberal/secular bias within this article against Bill O'Reilly and the conservatives. As for the pagans, Christmas wasn't a pagan holiday, it was based upon a pagan holiday, Christmas is the nativity of Jesus with some pagan–based secular aspects – some secular aspects are not pagan–related. The mention of paganism is irrevelent to this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied the article in depth, but the slant seems to be that secular people are somehow supposed to be stealing Christmas. A more neutral title would help. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Even "Claimed Secularization of Christmas" would be a step up, I think. Stephen B Streater 18:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The title is not biased, because it is a perfect description of what the article itself is about (which is what a title is meant to do). This article discusses the idea that over time Christmas is becoming secularized. It is my understanding that titles of articles are not understood to express viewpoints of anybody. Of course, as always, I am willing to change my position if you give a good enough reason. If you can provide a title that is both decently worded and descriptive of this article, then by all means, tell me what it is. Extravagance 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"...it does not make clear that Christmas was a Pagan holiday nicked by the Christians." Thats not even worth my time. But Ill leave you with a question: which holiday did we "nick"? If you cant answer that, then we'll all know youre lying. And you wont be able to answer because WE DIDNT NICK A HOLIDAY!!! Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Entire rewrite / Merge with Spring holiday

Hello, please see Talk:Spring_holiday#Entire_Rewrite_.2F_Merge_---_is_this_the_Answer.3F for my recent merge/rewrite proposal concerning the currently existing Secularization of Christmas and Spring holiday articles. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Specific incidences"

I strongly suggest that this section be removed. All that is does is list examples of businesses not recognizing Christmas. This is definitely not an example of the alleged secularization of Christmas, as the article itself defines the secularization of Christmas as "the notion that the religious elements of Christmas are gradually being removed from the celebration of the holiday, leaving cultural, non-religious elements such as Santa Claus and Christmas trees while eschewing traditions focused on the birth of Jesus Christ and the holiday's relevance in the Christian religion." The "specific incidences" section acts contrary to this definition, and instead lists examples of organizations avoiding recognition of the holiday altogether, which is not concurrent or consistent with the rest of the article. Even to suggest that it is a reference to the alleged "war on Christmas" would be inaccurate, as the article recognizes the "war on Christmas" to consist of claims of a concerted effort to secularize Christmas, not an effort to not celebrate Christmas (ironically, if a company like Walgreens were to refer to their "holiday decorations" as "Christmas decorations" they would actually be helping to secularize Christmas, by attributing secular themes to the religious holiday.)

In the end, I strongly reccomend the removal of this section. If that were not done, for some reason, I would encourage the removal of what we have now, and the inclusions of things like common secular themes attributed to Christmas, and things of that nature. Extravagance 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Secularization of Christmas" and "War on Christmas

Has it occured to anyone that these are two different things? The "secularization of Christmas" is by definition nothing more than the gradual introduction and increase in the prominence of secular themes attributed to the Christmas holiday. Certainly, there is no question as to whether or not this exists, and I believe it to be a perfectly legitimate, barely controversial and interesting social development. The "War on Christmas", however, is a far less widely accepted topic which suggests that there is a concerted effort to transform Christmas into a secular holiday. While these can both be defined as the "secularization of Christmas", they have very different meanings, in that one is a well-known social and cultural trend, and the other is a political allegation, with different implications all together.

in addition, it becomes more and more difficult to define the "War on Christmas" as an attempt to secularize the holiday when one actually examines the claims being made. After examining the so called "war on Christmas", it would appear that it is more better defined as an attempt to prevent individuals from celebrating Christmas at all that an attempt to male people celebrate Christmas in a secular manner rather than a religious one.

With all of this taken into consideration it becomes clear that these are two different, barely related topics. I therefore propose that this article be divided into two separate articles; one for the "war on Christmas" and the other for the actual secularization of Christmas (and some work would have to be done on the actual secularization of Christmas, for with all of the factual information about it, this article only skims the subject). In addition, I'm not sure that "secularization of Christmas" would be the best title for the actual secularization of Christmas, for the current title refers only to the transformation of Christmas into a secular holiday, rather than the more verifiable and encyclopedic presence of the secular themes of Christmas.

In summary, "war on Christmas" and "secularization of Christmas" are not the same thing, and it is only appropriate for them each to have their own articles. I hope that this issue will be addressed in the immediate to near future.

Extravagance 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally, this article was called "War on Christmas" and it dealt solely with the Bill O'Reilly/Fox News promoted conspiracy theory; O'Reilly and some of his Fox cohorts maintain that there is a "hidden" coven of powerful, depraved, cackling "liberal elites" secretly plotting to deliberately and completely eliminate Christmas from our culture. It was suggested that the article instead be about the securalization of Christmas -- something that most of us agree has been happening for centuries -- with a small sub-section devoted to the ludicrous "War". I was in support of this change, but after now reading the article many months after the change was made, I see that this was a big mistake. The "War on Christmas" nonsense is still given far too much weight here. There does seem to be real confusion regarding the two topics. Because of this, I agree with you that this should be split into two distinctly separate articles: "Securalization of Christmas" and "War on Christmas". Do others agree?--Hal Raglan 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Name change--Christmas controversy or Censorship of Christmas

As noted above, the "secularization of Christmas" is more along the lines of "commercialization of Christmas", in which the secular aspects are increased in prominence over the religious aspects of Christmas. Alternatively, this article specifically refers to the controversial censorship and dissolution of Christmas in the public square. The replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" and of "Christmas" with "holiday", "the Holiday", "Holiday tree", is what this article is about. Rather than being about the diminishment of the religious aspects in Christmas (i.e. - taking the Christ out of Christmas), it's about the non-recognization of Christmas in an array of winter holidays (i.e. - taking the Christmas out of the Holidays). Although I think the title War on Christmas is too POV, an alternative title other than the Secularization of Christmas should be considered. I'm down to either Christmas controversy or Censorship of Christmas but am up for other suggestions. Please, suggest. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this article is about the diminishment of the religious aspects of Christmas; just read it and you'll see. The article, after discussing the secularization of Christmas, goes on to mention the censorship of Christmas in some detail. The article currently discusses the secularization of Christmas and the censorship of Christmas, despite the fact that they are two different subjects. Rather than change the name of this article, we should create a separate "Censorship of Christmas" article, with this article being exclusively about the diminishment of the religious aspects of Christmas, and the other being exclusively about the alleged attempts to censor the expression and celebration of Christmas. That is the only appropriate and logical course of action.

Extravagance 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please....

This entire topic is a joke, a spin term used by right-wingers to galvanize idiot voters. To give it its own article is to recognize it as legitimate. 24.186.215.182 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We have an article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for example. Does that somehow legitmize the conspiracy theories found there? JoshuaZ 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua. Any idea that has widespread public attention should be covered here, and--more importantly--WILL be covered here, because if we delete the page someone else will put it back. So let's make it a good page, which in this case might very well mean making it two pages. Ethan Mitchell 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Highly Questionable NPOV

"The current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by Charles Dickens, who in A Christmas Carol sought to construct Christmas as a family-centered festival of generosity, in contrast to the prior, community and church centered observations whose observance slowly dwindled in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. "

Do we have any way to confirm that Dickens was actually trying to change the way Christmas is observed, or is this just an assumption? I mean, if you ask me, "A Christmas Carol" is a story about the evils of greed and the value of family, in which Christmas serves as a device rather than a subject of interest. The statement is not common knowledge, and is something that I have little difficulty challenging, so if you want a NPOV article, it needs either a citation or a removal.

Extravagance 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh, Extrav, I have also heard several times that ACC was an intentional effort to change the nature of the holiday, maybe as part of a larger public sentiment in that direction. In any event, I think the problem here is not POV but lack of a citation. Ethan Mitchell 14:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, these couple of paragraphs, which I had added, are summaries whose claims are taken out of the Hutton book, which is cited there. Hutton's argument, in gist, is that festivals that involved communal public revelry came under strong official pressure during the period of urbanization and the Industrial Revolution. Christmas could only be preserved by privatization, and by moving the focus of the celebration from the streets to the hearth. But, remaking the holiday in this way did nothing to encourage community celebration of the holiday as a religious occasion, either.

If anything should be challenged, it should be the prior paragraph's assertion that the decline of Christmas in the late eighteenth century was the work of "Puritans." This would be using the word "puritan" in its popular, not a historical, sense. It was the work of the guardians of Public Order, who saw danger in anything that got the proletariat publicly drunk and disorderly. Puritan claims that the holiday was "pagan" had little to do with it. Fear of the newly created urban underclass is likelier. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Avoidance/censorship issues" section rewrite

I think the Avoidance/censorship section is too long and too sparse and needs to be rewritten. It needs to be clearer on what the cultural position on the War on Christmas in America is. Would anyone support a rewrite of that section? I would be glad to give it a try and maybe present it here before making official changes.— OLP 1999 15:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as you don't use the word "eschew".... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're over the "eschew" debate by now. And no, I won't use the word. But I still think the article needs another title because this article covers two aspects of Christmas controversy— the secularization of the 18th–20th centuries and the current avoidance/"eschewal" (hehe) issues of the 21st century. Maybe just plain old "Christmas controversy" would be a good title?— OLP 1999 15:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction being made here. How is it "avoidance" to go ahead and celebrate the commercial aspects of the holiday while neglecting the religious aspects? Isn't that precisely what secularization means? Wouldn't avoidance be more like... just not acknowledging any kind of holiday or celebration? That's certainly not what any businesses are doing; they love Christmas profits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your question and it's a difficult one to answer. I hope you can follow me here. Essentially, this is the issue: the current controversy concerning the media's use of the term "holiday" instead of "Christmas" is not a direct secularization of Christmas per se, because in essence, they are saying "holiday", not Christmas, thus are not actually acknowledging that they are referencing Christmas in particular or at all. Although elements and aspects of the Christmas holiday are often prominently displayed in the TV ads (or other advertising) of the retailers in question, they use the term "holiday" to avoid association with Christmas, not necessarily to secularize it directly. Perhaps a clearer term than "avoidance" in this case would be "disacknowledgement" or "non-recognition"—personally, I'd like to throw in "hypocrisy" but that's POV. In conclusion, since in past centuries people have secularized Christmas while directly referring to Christmas itself with terms such as "Xmas", these past instances can be verified as a direct "secularization of Christmas". Not that I don't agree that the current trend is indeed a secularization of Christmas; but that's OR. Hope you were able to follow that explanation, it was confusing even to me. I'd like your response and opinion on the issue.— OLP 1999 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I follow your explanation. Basically, if there's an unambiguous reference to Christmas itself, but that reference is stripped of religious trappings, even including the removal of the name "Christ" from "Christmas" by calling it "Xmas", then we're talking about secularization. As soon as even the "Xmas" is dropped, and we're left with nothing but a color scheme and the idea that it's the season to give gifts around fir trees, then we're talking about avoidance of Christmas. Am I understanding you correctly?

It does seem to me that these various secularization/avoidance activities occur along a continuum, and that we have some freedom where we decide to change the label from "secularization" to "avoidance" or what-have-you. On the other hand, you seem to be drawing the line at the point where the particular festival of Christmas is mentioned at all, even in abbreviated form, as opposed to fully reverting to the pre-Christian trappings of yule-logs and evergreens and holly berries. That seems a reasonable place to draw it, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you've answered my question. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're understanding me correctly. The fact that they are not referring directly to Christmas offers the ambiguity as to whether it is a direct secularization of Christmas, though the fact that they often use Christmas-specific aspects like Santa Claus would suggest secularization of Christmas. It's hard to make a distinction about this, as you mentioned, but I think there's a clear difference between terms like "Xmas" as opposed to the current "holiday", and this should be acknowledged as a difference. Whether the term "avoidance" or "non-recognition" or another word is used, it should nonetheless be distinguished. Thanks for your interest21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A nuance missed

While of course there are examples of retail outlets changing "Christmas" to "Holidays" and such to appeal to a broader, non-Christian audience, one glaring reason they do so is pure marketing. By using "Holidays", businesses can start putting up their signs and running ads in October, to get people into the buying frenzy a month or more before they would normally think about gift shopping for Christmas itself. Everybody knows someone who does their shopping on Dec. 24th. Getting "Holidays" into the mix gets people thinking about it all so early. But if stores were to start putting "Christmas" in their windows in October, people start getting sick of hearing about it before its time. It's all about the marketing: Marketing for inclusivness of non-Christians to sell more product, and marketing to stress people into thinking about shopping for a holiday far before its time. 66.57.225.77 08:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In part, yes. But situations such as with Best Buy whereas they have "Holiday shipping dates" with subtitles like "Get your gifts in time for holiday" and "Make sure you get it by Dec. 25" indicates a clear motive to avoid use of the term Christmas even when it is specifically targeted as a date, i.e. December 25. And the move to use "holiday" instead of "Christmas" may have at first been for more revenue, but now with the War on Christmas controversy on full steam, many businesses are losing customers when they avoid Christmas, but they still continue to avoid it. It's more of a culturul status quo, almost like "Christmas" is taboo.— OLP 1999 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect some businesses lose customers when they mention Christmas as well; the poor retailers just can't please everyone. It's funny, Christmas used to be a celebration of the birth of Christ, and then it started turning into a celebration of shopping, and now some people are upset if you don't keep calling it "Christmas" in shop windows, others are upset if you call it "Christmas" because that doesn't seem inclusive of Jews and Muslims who like to shop in December, too, and still others are upset because Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and what has His birth got to do with shopping? Maybe that's the difference between secularization and avoidance that we were hashing out above. The first group is ok with secularization, but not avoidance, the second prefers both, and the third prefers neither! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. But remember the fact that Christmas was always a secular celebration as well as a religious one. Customs from the pagan Yule and other winter holidays were adopted almost as soon as the holiday based on Christ was introduced. The secular aspects simply became more popular over the years, it's not as if they were introduced as a secularization of Christmas.— OLP 1999 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was mostly thinking of the Ronald Hutton quote from the article, about Dickens, and how his reinvention of Christmas as a family-centered feast of generosity opened the door for commercialization, which leads quickly to various kinds of secularization, and eventually, to complete avoidance, because when you get right down to it, Jesus just wasn't about consumerism, at all. I agree, though, that it's a more nuanced issue than my presentation above really allowed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Would prefer a move back

The old title was a term that has been used much more frequently than "Christmas controversies" JoshuaZ 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That title was insufficient. The present-day Christmas issue doesn't involve a secularization of Christmas, it is usually associated with avoidance or censorship of the word "Christmas" or aspects of the holiday itself based on separation of church and state or political correctness. That's why this article is now separated into two sections; Secularization and Avoidance. Explanations of the necessity of this distinction is discussed thoroughly above. The former title was a good title but not sufficient in enveloping the entire scope of these issues.— OLP 1999 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. This move took place any significant participation from the community. The original title, despite whatever faults it may have, is how the public knows (and searches for) this topic. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the public searches for "War on Christmas", which was changed because it was deemed POV. No one searched for "Secularization of Christmas" any more than the current title and even if they did they would easily be redirected to this article anyway. Please leave it be, the current "war on Christmas" has nothing to do with secularization of the holiday, it's about avoidance or censorship.— OLP 1999 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Deemed POV"? Yes, "Secularization of Christmas" is the common point of view with 12,400 hits [12], whereas "Christmas controversies" generates nearly less than half as many hits at 7,320 [13]. What the public calls something is what the public calls something, we're not under any obligation to censor commonly used terms. I think you're confused about how WP:NPOV is applied. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I meant that this article used to be called "War on Christmas" and was renamed because that title was too POV. I know how WP:NPOV works. So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how popular the title of the article is, it matters as to whether it sufficiently envelops the issues within. If you searched "War on Christmas" I'm sure you'd find the most results.— OLP 1999 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think OLP1999 has the move history wrong. This article was last moved from Secularization of Christmas to Christmas controversies, after momentary stops at Eschewal of Christmas, and Abolition of Christmas. Before that, separate articles at War on Christmas and Secularization of Christmas were merged into War on Christmas, before being moved back to Secularization of Christmas. Because of the separate threads, it's hard to tell the move history before that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. There was never two separate articles for War on Christmas and Secularization of Christmas. Going to the first few weeks of editing for this article, you'll see the title "War on Christmas" and all the same content as the eventual "Secularization of Christmas" article. And having being involved in this article's editing last year (under IPs), I know that there was always only one article.— OLP 1999 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you can't see deleted edits, OLP1999, it's quite an understandable mistake. Secularization of Christmas did exist from January 4 - January 20 of this year as a separate fork article, which was merged back in after discussion. Clues can be found in this diff and this one. The edit summaries refer to another article whose history is now invisible underneath the history of the redirect at Secularization of Christmas. I'm not sure what the relevance of this history is, but I thought I'd set the record straight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The argument that OLP1999 is making for the current title is that it is inaccurate. The article deals with content that, by OLP1999's reasoning, goes beyond mere "secularization" and into "avoidance" or "censorship". It would be like having an article about rodents located under the title "mouse" - it's an error of scope. The article does have content about mice, but also about squirrels. This one has content about secularization, but also about avoidance.

I understand his point: simply neglecting to celebrate Christmas is different from celebrating it in a more and more secular manner. There does seem to be a continuum beteen the two, and I think it could be argued that continued promotion of shopping during the December rush is celebration of secular Christmas, and therefore still falls under "secularization", but I don't find the argument (or the opposing argument) particularly compelling. We're in a grey area here, and it's difficult to draw a line. It would be nice if we the title didn't require that line to be drawn. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we make a daring move and return this article to its original name, "War on Christmas". Although it's a recently coined term and could be considered a POV, it is better to describe all of the Christmas-related controversy than "Secularization of Christmas" or even "Christmas controversies" because it is a much more popular term. Searching Google brings over 500,000 results compared to 15,000 for "Secularization of..". My proposal would be either to move it back to War on Christmas, keep the current title, or have someone think of a better title. IMO "Secularization of Christmas" is not an option.— OLP 1999 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See Also

I recently alphabetized this section, and started wondering about the redlinks. I couldn't find anything specific in the MOS or the Style Guide about it, but doesn't a redlink defeat the purpose of being listed in "See Also"? I had a strong impression that the section should contain only active internal links. Is someone else more familiar with the specific details? Doc Tropics 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Why the hell is there no Criticism of this, this whole War on Christmas is just something conjured up by Fox News every December so that they can avoid taking about actual issues that matter, specifically the fact we have troops dying in Iraq?--Jack Cox 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the controversies about the secularization of Christmas have actually been going on for a bit longer than the war in Iraq, so a direct causal relation between the two seems doubtful. Even so, most topics do have a "Criticism" section, and this one doesn't. I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but I'm not quite sure what it would include, since the article is largely about people's perceptions. Can you suggest something specific, preferably something we can find reliable refs for? If so, then we should certainly include them. Doc Tropics 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Jack Cox has hit the nail on the head to use a cliche. It is a lot of hype or a Fox News Weapon of Mass Distraction, LOL.

From a US standpoint, we have a separation of church/state, so naturally there will be challenges when Christian centric holiday displays are allowed on public land. The ACLU have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever greeting Wal Mart uses in its stores despite the continued scapegoating by self styled "culture warriors". Wal Mart is not the government. It's an entirely different issue that has more to do with accomodating customers of diverse belief systems. Happy Holidays (last time I checked Christmas is still a holiday so Christian shouldn't get offended by my greeting,LOL)Smiloid 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

'Tis the Season for the Reason

Sorry, I'm dyslexic. Did I get that backwards? I'll tell you what's backwards... taking a nice little public move towards inclusiveness and warping it into an us versus them issue. If Jesus really is the reason for the season, then let's forget shopping centers altogether and live like Jesus did, in poverty shunning worldly possessions. If we all did that, then we really wouldn't care what signs at Wal-Mart say. I tell you what the author of those books see the reason for the season to be... an excuse to drag out a tired old argument and sell more books! That's backwards. Oh goody, Halloween is here! We can start selling more books about Wars on Christmas! Let's make it a Season for Reason and embrace inclusiveness whenever possible.--71.31.23.227 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude this isn't a forum. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside of the US

Christmas, and current christmas controversies do exist outside of the United States. This is a heavily US-centric article and a little information about the state of the war on christmas elsewhere would be helpful. The 'problem' is arguably worse in the UK at the current time, and I'm sure that it is apparent all over the world. 128.240.229.6 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That’s because no other countries are batshit like the U.S. is. I understand the tabloids have imported some of it, and I’m sure it’s spilled over into Canada, too. Whether it’s raging harder in the UK, however, I can’t say, but do you really think this is a worldwide issue in scope, or simply a convenient wedge issue that works well in America’s particular sociocultural milieu? —Wiki Wikardo 00:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Insults on the page

The very first section claims that "some chavs" disagree with the contents of the article. I think we can all agree that putting blatant insults on the page to anyone who disagrees with it is childishness of the first order, not to mention unencyclopediac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itainohime (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Best Buy and allegations of "censorship" being treated as fact.

Best Buy does NOT avoid Christmas! The clerks may use any greeting they deem appropriate, yes even greetings which use the "C-word (LOL @double entendre)" Allegations of censorship have been presented as if they were fact in the sub section title. I have subsequently made a correction. Smiloid 06:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Major issues with the modern "War on Christmas"-related section

There really needs to be a much more prominent airing of viewpoints opposed to the idea that there is a "War on Christmas". There are maybe four or five sentences that ackowledge that not everyone believes that Christmas is somehow under attack. This article is about a minority opinion, and Wikipedia must be wary of giving it undue weight. Croctotheface 10:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Phrase could use clarification

The article describes the "War on Christmas" as being "a term that was popularized in conservative media in 1999". This would be a very minor edit, but I would like someone to clarify what is meant by "conservative media". Does that mean conservative media sources such as Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh? Does that mean official Republican Party literature? I presume the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.186.166 (talk • contribs).

Split up the modern stuff

The article is very text dense in the 'Fox' section - it would be helpful if one of you folks who have been involved could split it into some sub-sections (before you suggest I do it remember that I haven't been involved in all the controversy - if you have been through it you will probably be better positioned then I to do so). I was looking to add some material on the UK based controversies, which seem to be mostly Foxless, but it loks as if they were once here and were edited out. So, you need to decide, is this an article on Christmas controversies in general, or on Fox specifically? Duncan 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fox" section? This controversy is much more widespread than the FOX Network. There are citations to back all the claims of the current controversy section, and since it is a "controvery" as much as the earlier ones are, it belongs in the same category. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous title

I know that name-change of the article is something that has been long under development and undergone many stages, but I must say that the article's current title is unneccessarily ambiguous. For one thing, it does not entirely describe what the article is about. If I were to see an article with the title "Christmas controversy" it would make me think "Okay...but what exactly is the controversy...what exactly is the article about?"

More importantly, "Christmas controversy" could describe any number of controversies surrounding Christmas, and does not refer specifically to the subject of the article.

Also nothe that "Christmas controversy" is not a term that is in widespread usage, so if the title is ambiguous, there is not precedent for assumption that the term describes itself.

I think that this article could use a less ambiguous title; a title that describes what it is about. I have long been supportive of the title Censorship of Christmas, or something else that describes the idea that people are causing harm to the holiday of christmas by going out of their way to not recognize it. The title Intentional avoidance of Christmas is also an option, but that may be too specific, as to not be as descriptive. I do not particularly like the title War on Christmas, as it is not objective enough, and is just a common nickname for this thing that we do not yet have a name for

Calgary 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? The opening paragraphs explain that this article is not only about the current "War on Christmas", but former controversies that have surrounded Christmas. Those former controversies had nothing to do with "censorship" or "Intentional avoidance" of Christmas, only the current controversy does this. The title covers all aspects of any Christmas-related controversy, past and present, and it is quite clearly stated in the opening that this article covers all. I can't see how you hadn't noticed this? --Sarcha 45 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, but wouldn't you agree that "Christmas controversy" makes it sound as though it is Christmas itself that is controversial? Could we at least change it to Controversies surrounding Christmas? Or perhaps Christmas controversies? "Christmas controversy" sounds like a singular proper noun, suggesting that this article relates to a single "Christmas controversy" as opposed to a history of "Christmas-related controversy". So can we have a move? Please, please, please?

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

non-christian rebuttal links

As a non-Christian I am extremely offended by "Happy Holidays", because the holiday in question is "Christmas" Y'know what holidays OTHER religions celebrate that are comparable to Christmas in their religion?

Islam: Ramadhan Judaism: Pesakh Hinduism: Diwali Sikhism: Vaisikhi

I fail to see how "happy holidays" delivered only in direct proximity to Christmas helps those holidays out. Don't give me this crap about "Khanike", I'm from a Jewish family, nobody gives a shit about that holiday compared to how much Pesakh (passover) means. If you went to Indonesia and during Ramadhan they wished all the Christians a Happy Luke the Evangelist day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist), wouldn't you think that was the stupidest thing ever?

So instead of posting this on the main page, which would be in extremely poor form, I was wondering if anyone out there in the wikipedia universe has any links on the subject of non-Christians feeling demeaned by Politically Correct horse-dookie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.217.229 (talk • contribs)

What does this have to with the article? This page is for discussion on how to alter and improve the article in question, not to request links or discuss your personal views. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One word not directly from Bill O'Reiley? One? Please?

Can we have one word in this article to the effect that quite a few people see the whole controversy as something contrived by FOX news to spread hate against non-Christians? One little word? Maybe something like "many have suggested that the controversy has been exaggerated by pundits like Bill O'Reiley for political purposes?" I know this article is written by and for the viewers of Mr. O'Reiley... I'd just them to have an inkling of what it was like for a lot of us who never objected to "Merry Christmas" to now suddenly be harassed, bullied, and threatened by O'Reilleyists every December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.243.247 (talk) 22:16, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to present the article neutrally, not assert that the entire existence of this controversy originated with Bill O'Reilly or is enforced by him. The fact is that Christmas controversies are occurring, including the "renamings" of Christmas trees to Holiday trees, Christmas pageants to Holiday pageants, etcetera. This has nothing to do with O'Reilly. This has been going on long before he brought up the subject. Sure, he is worth a mention, but only as much as is necessary. — John Stattic (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not provide citations? The article says, at the moment, that it started in Since 1999, when 'various people' suddenly became concerned about it. If the phenomenon is older and exists outside a media echo chamber, it should be easy enough to find noteworthy earlier examples. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Target Wiki Edit

• a Target Corporation edit of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themepark (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Added section and updated others

Christmas is coming! Time to polish up this article! Heh, I added a new "government" section that might look a little US-centric, but after all this whole issue is US-centric. I'd like comments if anyone reads, I like constructive criticism :D. — GM Chrysler ^(D`oh) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing war

Although this controversy is documented to a larger degree in the U.S., it is still very much existent in other countries such as Canada, the U.K., and others. Here's one link from Canada depicting the avoidance of Christmas: [14], and there are many Canadian and UK news articles about the controversy. Please stop reverting. I have added a new template to acknowledge the US-centricity of the issue. Gee Emm Christlur 07:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. I’d ask for a cite on the claim “and others.” Maybe Australia. —Wiki Wikardo 00:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Majority Non-Christian?

I quote: "However, since 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas and many of them are non-Christian". I am weary about the use of "many of them are non-Christian". Whilst the first part of the quote is backed by a citation, the second part is not -- this should not be assumed. Recent figures from the Pew Research Council indicate that around 82 to 84% of Americans claim to adhere to a Christian belief -- needless to say, that this would appear to be the majority (www.adherents.com; people-press.org/events/). Perhaps use of these figures could help to produce more clarity. For example: "Whilst 82% of Americans are of Christian belief, an additional 14% decide to partake in Christmas celebrations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.134.131 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fibbing to Children

I've heard it bought up here and there but what about the whole thing of Santa being used to make parents liars to their kids? There's a Chick Tract on this at the least. [15] --Is this fact...? 13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association is not Christian

WHY is an organization that purportedly seeks to promote Christianity concerning themselves with how retailers promote their pursuit of accumulating more material possessions?

People are homeless, hungry, sick and without access to medical care and the AFA is worried that Kohl's isn't using the word "Christmas" to make money?? This season is SUPPOSED to be about celebrating the birth of the Savior and all the AFA seems to care about is forcing the corruption of the meaning of Christ's birth.

Jesus COMMANDED that we take care of the less fortunate not use the occasion of his birth to sell material goods.

I believe the AFA has no interest in the true ideals of Christianity AT ALL. They never send out materials urging charity, love or caring for the sick.

In my opinion, they are nothing more than false prophets contributing to the corruption of God's word.

http://AFAnotChristian.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.12.179 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum. Your rant doesn't contribute to the (long, laborious, tedious) improvement of the article.--Eddylyons (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus is a religious figure

Of course Santa Claus is a religious figure, i've never heard something so stupid in my life! Santa Claus translates as 'Saint Nicholas', how is dat not religious??

--140.203.12.240 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Paddy More--140.203.12.240 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In Scandinavia they have a fat old man with a white beard dressed in a red and white suit who travels around and hands out gifts during the 24th of december every year, yet they don't call him that Santa Claus. They call him "Jultomten". The name has nothing to do with it. So just because he's partially based on religion doesn't mean he's a religious figure. He's essentially been secularized. He doesn't preach or mean anything religious at all. Witness that in the fact that whether he gives out gifts is based upon if children have been naughty or nice (not whether they're religious or believe in Christ) or such as the fake history of that he lives in the North Pole (Saint Nicholas was born in what is today called Turkey), etc... 70.176.60.127 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus has religious origins but is not religious in nature. Just as Christmas has pagan origins but is not a pagan holiday.—Steven Evens (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

I don't mean to niggle over nonsense, but in my Wikipedia travels I've noticed that no other article describing social controversies or real/perceived systems of 'persecution' links to persecution complex. I'd say this is POV in that its addition to this article suggests that people who believe there is a concerted effort to secularize Christmas or remove it entirely from public discourse are no more than paranoid conspiracy theorists. Whether or not this is actually the case is unimportant. Removing this link would be considerably easier than adding it to homophobia or racism, for example. The issue has already been raised on the homophobia talk page; opponents of the addition consider the link to be part of a covert agenda to undermine the LGBT movement. In order to avoid accusations of a double standard I think it best that the link be removed. Since axing the link on one article will be simpler (and far less contentious) than adding it to all relevant articles, I'll make the change. Bearerofthecup (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A more chronological sequence

I went to add this to the chronological section (because he's a major part of the whole controversy)...

• Fox News' John Gibson publishes The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. (Sentinel, 2005). ISBN 1-59523-016-5.

...and then I realized I'd put it in a the boycots section.

I think the topical organization makes it hard to see the context, and a more chronological organization would give more of a action/reaction/rereaction perspective. More forest, less trees, if you will, when the trees are lined up properly.

I'm thinking to arrange them primarily chronological but grouped into "eras" (tho there is some overlap).

One era would be, I think, the presumed-Christian era. Another would be the fights over the trees and the menoras. Another would be the media-fueled War On Christmas era.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Any objections? --Treekids (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Any controversial article needs to look as good as possible. It's much harder to argue with an well-crafted article. -- trlkly 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

History Section

Well, it could use more citations. I'm fixing an obvious POV problem by mentioning the source, which has the magical effect of saying "This may be POV. but it's the POV of this guy." -- trlkly 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm cutting this section:

According to Kelly Wittmann, "In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast." Also, "In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture...It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born."

We have better references--like, accurate ones, over on the Christmas page. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)