Talk:Christmas controversies/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Killing Christmas?

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

Best regards from Motherload Christmas

There is no "war" against Christmas. There may well be a war against forcing everyone to partake of Christmas, whether they want to or not - and thats one I would definitely support, but I have never met anyone who wanted to stop others celebrating Christmas if that's what they want to do. There is, however, quite a large number of people who, given the chance, would prefer to abandon the enforced Christmas holidays and carry on as normal, taking the holiday at a much more sensible time (e.g. during the summer!) or maybe limiting Christmas to every 2 years. However, whenever anything like this is mentioned, the "you're against Christmas" brigade all pipe up, and thats where this article fits in. StanPomeray (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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

POV?

"as well as several other prominent retailers that practiced similar downgradings of the holiday." This seems a bit...loaded? Downgrading of the holiday? It sounds like an assumption of deliberate, well, downgrading of the holiday. As opposed to, say, "...that practiced similar obscuration of the holiday." Maybe not even obscuration. But it sounds (to my ears) like an implication of intent to insult Christmas (when my cynical mind would suggest that, more likely, it is an attempt not to alienate any customer base and thus lose money) Thoughts? FangsFirst (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "obscuration" rather than "downgrading." Most retailers will gladly take (and some even rely on) the massive upsurge in shopping in November and December related to Christmas, but some (Target is a recent example, at least from a few years ago) have been known to tone down or even eliminate decorations (excepting those for sale) and ambient music. HappyJake (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If everyone has agreed that "downgrading" ought to be replaced by "obscuration", why hasn't anyone done it yet? Regardless, I'm going to change it. Ginnna 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I just stopped by to get some information, and it struck me that this article could have been written by the AFA, since it consists mostly of a year-by-year listing of their purported triumphs in boycotting assorted retailers. Couldn't that be boiled down to "The American Family Association claims that its boycotts have coerced retailers into changing their advertising" or something? 66.92.68.103 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I added a sentence a while back that states that most of the boycots are generated by the AFA. Still, I find this section problematic. The average reader might assume that there is a large move to boycot these stores when, in fact, most of these actions are linked only to the AFA. Sure, the article's contents are factual and verifiable, but they seem to unfairly emphasize the role of a relatively small organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on new edits

I have made extensive changes to the entirety of this article (minus the "Historical controversy" section), and I believe they're for the better. I am requesting external comment to determine if the edits suit the NPOV of the article, and to suggest improvements if needed. Thanks. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Altho' the lead does mention Britain, it doesn't seem to feature prominently in the body of the article. There has been quite a bit of fuss about it here, with local authorities inventing something called Winterval, & Red Cross charity shops banning Christmas cards. Such behaviour has been criticized by Muslims among others, & the Red Cross objection to Christian symbols is absurd, as they are one themselves. I can't cite any sources for this, tho'. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It all seems a wee bit pro-Christmas to me. Having lived in a very multicultural city, i'm used to having decorations etc in a combined display for Xmas, honnuka, Diwali. I'd never heard any complaints about this before - it made the holiday season longer and more fun! There are no notable groups supporting the idea of replacing Xmas? Eg. I'm sure i've read editorials, both pro and anti, in UK newspapers when Birmingham was having "Winterval" one year.

Also i agree with the above that mentioning the overlapping holidays would help inform the reader and put this into context. If the holiday was ONLY about Xmas there would be no reason to downplay it, apart from the consumerist reasons given. Social inclusivity and unfairness in having government pay for holiday events for only one religion is also a factor. The name "Winterval" covered Xmas and Diwali, so the council only had to put up one set of non-religion-specific decorations. It's not only about "political correctness gone mad, and pro- and anti- christian biases. Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair- one Super Winter Holiday, combining all the various stuff celebrated by people in the area. I've got no problem with that. However, it's when they've got "Happy Holiday" and it's clearly meaning Christmas (Santa and reindeer, nothing from other holidays), then that is when it's trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Objectors

It seems odd to me, when giving examples of people "fighting" the War on Christmas, it mentions one Athiest, one Muslim, and two Jews... as though all those groups only have those specific people on that side. Just seems a little odd, right? One Muslim out of a billion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all that the citations support. Perhaps the assertion should be removed altogether, if the facts supported by the citation seem odd and out of place. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert in article lead paragraph

I have reverted a recent change in the lead paragraph, partly because I object to the language of the edit as WP:POV. But it's a problematic thing, for I agree with that editor that the existing language of the lead is also POV. I figure the fallback position ought to be retention of the earlier-agreed-on language for now, while the issue is talked over here. For the moment, I will mull over what I might propose for a change. In discussion, I do propose to support the following principles, which I think are clearly backed by Wikipedia. This article is not a place to try to settle the controversy. The article needs to articulate in neutral language what the controversy is, and may need to provide neutral descriptions of differing points of view in order to do so. Such descriptions must be kept in balance, lest the article become POV through undue emphasis. The inclusion of such points of view must also not overpower the entire article content by their number. And the lead paragraph in particular needs to remain a place of summary and concise writing, not close to a full exposition. If exposition is required, the right section below must be found or created. I am new to this article but not as new to controversial topics on WP, so pardon if my comments are overkill here; but I have already seen signs of contention in the recent disruptive acts of vandalism. And I thought everyone deserved the chance to know something about where I stand before we try to do some good work. Evensteven (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

origin of advent

From the article:

The Advent season (originally a fasting period meant to point to the Second Coming of Christ), and gift giving (invented by Martin Luther to counter St. Nicholas Day, December 6) were also pagan in origin.[citation needed]

Obviously it can't originally have been intended to point to the second coming of christ and be pagan in origin. I have no idea what the author of this sentence was trying to say.

Paul Brannan (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Norway and Sweden

This article roughly defines the "christmas controversy" as a reluctance/avoidance of the word "Christmas", the denial of a person's right to celebrate this holiday and the avoidance of any religious connection to the holiday. The Norway and Sweden examples in the section describing government controversy do not seem to fit this article. In both of those cases, the government seems to be saying, "you can celebrate this holiday if you want to, but you cannot compel public school children to participate in religious activities if they decline to do so." Nobody is preventing those who want to celebrate the holiday from celebrating it. They are simply saying that nobody can be forced to participate in a religious activity if they do not want to. Is this really part of the so-called "Christmads Controversy"? I propose removing these two paragraphs unless someone can show how they link directly to this article. I don't see how it is hostile to Christmas to simply avoid forcing someone to participate religious services if they don't want to. I will wait for comments before I delete those sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elielilamasabachthani (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am the one who inserted these edits. The article start saying "The term "Christmas controversy" refers to the issue surrounding the celebration or acknowledgment of the Christmas holiday (or lack thereof)". In Norway/Sweden, there is much controversy on whether Christmas should be celebrated through school visits to churches. The alternative is a more secular holiday celebration in schools. I note in the history section, that there has been all kinds of controversies through histories; I don't see a reason to make the scope of contemporary issues too narrow; only to cover the typical American debate. Iselilja (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not saying we should limit the scope to the American debate. I get your point there. What I'm wondering is this: the Christmas Controversy is about policies and practices that deny someone the right to celebrate (or even acknowledge) this holiday. Some examples of this include: when a town refuses to let a Christian group place a nativity scene in a park, when a store has a "holiday" sale rather than a Christmas sale or when someone calls it a holiday tree, etc. In all of these cases, the main complaint from the offended party goes something like, "I'm upset because you are denying the existence of this holiday and are interfering with my right to celebrate it". The Norway and Sweden examples seem to say, "I am upset because the government will not let me force people to participate in a religious ceremony against their will". Can you see the difference between these two points? If Norway or Sweden told kids who wanted to celebrate that they could not, I think you would have a good example to include here, but your examples do not show how anyone's right to celebrate Christmas is being denied. Your examples only illustrate that Norway/Sweden think it is wrong to force someone to participate if they don't want to. I don't see anything in this wiki article that says it is controversial if one person cannot force another person to participate in a religious ceremony. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"your examples do not show how anyone's right to celebrate Christmas is being denied." To certains degree it does; in the meaning that some schools cancel Christmas school services and other groups advocate that schools should cancel all of these Christmas services. Many people in Norway think this is denying them one traditional way of celebrating Christmas in Norway. As I stated above the article defines Christmas controversies as "the issue surrounding the celebration or acknowledgment of the Christmas holiday (or lack thereof)".There is no people in democratic countries who want to ban people from celebrating Christmas privately or in churches in their spare time; the debate is about to which degree people should be able to celebrate Christmas in public; and particularly to which degree governmetn institutions (like schools) should accomodate Christmas celebrations. If there is consensus for your interpretation of the policy, I will start a new article about Christmas controversies in Scandinavia/Europe; however, as I don't see any sign yet that you have any consensus for your interpretation, I think it is too early and I will therefore reinsert the edit until such a consensus emerges. Iselilja (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

At least stick with the stuff you mentioned here in talk: "To certains degree it does; in the meaning that some schools cancel Christmas school services and other groups advocate that schools should cancel all of these Christmas services." I think that comment (with citations) does match this article. I just think you need to leave out the details related to forcing the unwilling to participate. I don't think anybody finds it controversial if a state doesn't force a jewish kid to attend a Christian church service. That would be an expansion of this article that I don't think we want. I would support the inclusion of details showing how some schools in Norway and Sweden are avoiding Christmas in general (even for kids who want to celebrate). That seems to fit here. Thanks! Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not controversial that Jewish, Muslim or Humanist children shall be allowed to stay away from participatin in church masses (allthough several politicans encourage immigrant pupils of other faiths to attend, as a way to familiarize themselves with Norwegian culture). However, the opposers of school arranged school masses are not satisfied with the right to not attend; as they feel that school arranges christmas masses is causing a split among pupils (some going to churches; others not); and also arguing that the alternative set up for school masses has not been good at many scools where only few pupils are left while most pupils attend church. On the other sides, in many places most parents and pupils want to attend school arranged masses before Christmas and are disturbed by the suggestion (from different organizations etc) that this shall no longer be allowed, with some schools already canceling these masses. Traditionally, these Christmas masses were often held at the last day before the Christmas holiday and was the formal way of ending school before Christmas. This is no longer allowed, so that's a compromise and concession to those who don't want these school masses. I see this discussion as pretty similar to controversies that are mentioned in the section for other countries; which basically all are about to which degree public Christmas celebrations shall have religious connotations or be secularized (and then sometimes renamed holiday/winter celebration). Anyway, this is a recurrent and important debate/controversy in Norway (and Sweden, but maybe to lesser extent) that definitely is notable for Wikipedia. There are several other controversies related to Christmas, as well, for instance whether Advent/Christmas program in state television shall be religious or secular. The alternative to having this information in this article is to make another article specifically related to Christmas controversies in Norway/Scandinavia or maybe specifically about the controversies about school-arranged christmas masses. But, I would like input first from other users on whether the Norwegian stuff belongs in this article or needs its own. I have alerted the three Wikiprojects that are mentinoed on top of this article about this discussion, and will put up an RfC if that doesn't lead to any response. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, the Scandinavian issue should remain in the article (imo). I see the need for a little perspective here. The article is entitled "Christmas controversy". Despite being phrased in the singular, I think it still implies "any controversy about Christmas", and includes various forms. It is a somewhat generalized banner under which subdivisions of controversy can be discussed. I think that means that issues of denials of religious liberties are there, as well as issues of forced participation. In fact, these two sets of issues are not really separable as two, but are inseparably bound together, which is why there is controversy. The "two" are merely the one controversy seen from the viewpoints of opposing sides. Christians understand that Christmas (Christ mass) is the religious observance (at a religious service) celebrating the coming to earth of God himself. To separate "Christmas" from that observance is to make it "not Christmas at all", but something different. However, non-Christians understand Christmas to be the observance of a variety of social, even secular, customs, and do not regard religious matters as necessary for it at all. In fact, they may regard religion as an intrusion into "Christmas". (Ok, that's all a little simplistic, but it covers the large ground.) The controversy often stems from the perception of "forcing", the application of power (or fear of its application), either to include religious matters, or to exclude them. And that is basically the issue in any nation that is dealing with it in some way. If this article does not sufficiently describe the controversy in its introduction, then perhaps a text change is in order - you can see approximately what I would argue for. The point is, we shouldn't start this discussion from what the article currently says (look above, that's how it was). Instead, we need to decide what the article should say, in its opening sentence or two. And that may resolve the matter about Norway and Sweden all by itself. Right now, we don't have an agreed definition of what the controversy is, and until we do, we don't know what we're arguing about. (How often controversies arise that way!) Evensteven (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely not germane to this article. The definition of the Christmas Controversy is well described in the opening of the article. This definition was reached with plenty of input from many authors. What the Norway/Sweden examples do is add to the definition in a way that does not have the consensus of the editors. I am fine with leaving part of these edits in, but NOT the part where we call it controversial for a state to refuse to force an unwilling participant to go to a religious ceremony. If we leave those sections in, we should add to the opening of the article with a statement like, "The Christmas Controversy also includes objections to a state's refusal to allow Christians to force non-Christians to attend religious Christmas ceremonies." I doubt that edit would be accepted by the majority of editors, yet you both seem to think it is OK to expand this article in ways that sound absurd to me.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, your personal view is clear; nevertheless, "what sounds absurd to you" is not the standard the article needs to abide by. You will note that I did not venture to change the definition as stated in the article, yet. But I could. Even if agreed upon once, it is not necessarily set in stone. And as an editor, I have as much authority to propose changes as anyone else. I'm not sure yet what changes I might suggest, or where in the article, but it is certainly clear to me that I may do so at any time. Then you and everyone else will have the opportunity to have a say also, which is as it should be. For the present time, I stand firmly behind the inclusion of the Norway/Sweden material, as is germane to the Christmas controversy as it exists in the world. If on Wikipedia, an artificial definition has been devised that limits discussion of that controversy, then that definition may require changing, because it is the controversy in the world that truly defines it, and the world definition can shift and expand with ongoing events. Wikipedia is reflective, not definitive. One cannot object on the basis of what "we call it controversial for a state to refuse" because we as editors do not decide what is controversial and what is not. Therefore, the fact that the described issues are big deals in Norway and Sweden, and certainly notable, forces their coverage. I agree with user Iselilja that the only WP question is "coverage here" or "coverage separately". The issues are about controversies and they are related to Christmas. I think a strong case would need to be made about why coverage ought to occur separately from this article, as its title gives the most natural description of the issues' category. Evensteven (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the intro to include this newly expanded definition of the controversy. As long as the intro stands, I suppose this expansion at least logically flows throughout the article and I cannot object. I hope I can count on your support for the new intro sentence I added (including any edits you might suggest). The beauty and flaw of Wikipedia is that anyone can change the definition of an article. So be it. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that aspect of the article, keeping it inwardly consistent. I'll look it over, but am off to other things for a little while. Evensteven (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit puzzling. I don't see any new edit to the intro yet. Evensteven (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

'Increasingly multiculturally sensitive'?

This is an unsourced and largely unverifiable view of society in the lead. I don't think that any Christian country is becoming more sensitive, just a few Red loonies at minor city councils and schools. But that's my opinion. Can you source yours? Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

'Red loonies'? Nice to see you be so clear about what you think. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential Featured Article

This article would be a good candidate to be selected as a potential Featured article, especially if featured during the "Holidays." This article would need to be designated as a Good article first, which would be a good short term goal for this article. Most of the reference issues have been resolved. However, this article needs copyediting, if anyone agrees with this assessment and would like to help with this process. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the article isn't good. It is a hodge-podge of unrelated content. Most of the content is about the US "culture wars", but the article seems to be unwilling to make this its focus. Instead there are long tangents on completely unrelated topics. The "current controversies" section is ostensibly split into "government", "Christmas tree" and "retailers" issues. Under "government" we find sections on the UK and South Africa, creating the false impression that this article somehow has an international scope. And what are the UK "governmental" controversies? Random local headlines from a few years back,

In November 2009 the city council of Dundee was accused of banning Christmas

What this article is in fact about is the bitter cultural war in the United states with "New Atheism" on one side, and "Conservatives" on the other. There can easily be a "history" section about this, Anglo-Saxon puritanism and the like, but it is unclear how the following paragrph is able to contribute anything,

There is also controversy concerning the precise date of December 25 as the presumed birthday of Jesus. December 25 was the date of the winter solstice in ancient times (before subsequent drift due to chronological errors in the Julian calendar eventually left the solstice on its present date of December 21.) As such, many pagan winter holidays occurred on this date, which marks the shortest day of the year and the point where the days become longer again. Many customs from these holidays, particularly from the pagan Scandinavian and Germanic celebration of Yule in northern Europe, are transparently present in later Christmas customs, suggesting that the date was appropriated directly from pagan customs and given a Christian veneer rather than being the true birthday of Jesus.

This doesn't document a controversy at all, it is just a poor summary of the history of Christmas itself. Christmas has been celebrated since the 4th century. Its present form more or less dates to the 19th. Nobody ever claimed 25 December was the "true birthday of Jesus", this "controversy" is just a strawman of what is really a battlefield of the multiculturalism/political-correctness debate in North America. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I agree this article needs more focus. One option would be to focus this article on Christmas controversies in the United States. If Christmas controversies exist in other countries, then Wikipedians from those countries may create separate articles to summarize those issues. -Mistercontributer (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's get Ron Paul in here

His article "The War on Religion" is focused on Christmas, and it's relatively early (2003) in this controversy: http://www.waronchristmas.com/ron-paul-and-the-war-on-christmas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Mitchell (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

Much of this article seems to be written from the POV of those who believe that there is a "War on Christmas." There are numerous examples of "anti-Christmas" activities and how people have "fought back" against the War on Christmas. Of course this is connected to the belief of these people, and others, who believe that Christmas should be a publicly-celebrated, government-supported holiday. It generally discounts the beliefs of those who fell otherwise. There needs to be more inclusion of the view of those who do not believe there is a "War on Christmas," those who are accused of waging a "War on Christmas," and those who may in fact actually be waging such a war. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Winterval

This is often cited as Birmingham City Council's attempt to secularise Christmas, but is overlooked is that it was a purely COMMERCIAL idea to promote trade and businesses in the city. I have seen programs on the BBC where theists have been allowed to claim that mention of Christmas was banned without any form of challenge at all, or any requirement to back up their claims.2.125.67.48 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)LanceTyrell

I agree, but do you want to make some specific changes and have you sources for them? Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Christmas in the Colonies

It should probably be mentioned that Christmas wasn't celebrated by the early american settlers, and that doing so was actually a legal offense. It should also be noted that at the founding of the country, Christmas was still not widely celebrated. This is significant because many of the arguments that it is tradition point to the early settlers and founders. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tovalu's first bold edit on wiki

I removed the sentence about non-christians agreeing per WP:UNDUE. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name *prominent* adherents. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Among non-christians the "christmas controversy" is a non-issue, an extremely small minority of people may agree with the people who believe Christmas is being censored even though they are not christian but mentioning them is giving undue weight.

I also deleted an opinion by a nonnotable (WP:ONEEVENT) tree-owner. Tovalu (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article a bit, but it still needs lots of work! Please help by checking if the the article is properly sourced and neutral. Tovalu (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(Perceived?) censorship

Regarding this edit and the two preceding it, is it appropriate to use the word perceived in describing the censorship of the terms Christmas, Easter, etc.? On one hand, it is Wikipedia policy to avoid weasel words, and perceived might be thought of as such a word. On the other hand, this page is discussing an avowed controversy, and seems to attribute (in the previous paragraph, as well as the one in question) the evaluation to particular individuals or groups. As my edits suggest, I believe that it is appropriate to include the word; clearly at least one other editor disagrees. Can we attempt to reach some consensus here? Cnilep (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word "censorship" necessarily needs an adjective in that spot to indicate that it is a censorship that is being alleged. The word is first used within the context of a claim being made by Brimelow, O'Reilly, etc., so to my mind it follows that the "censorship" being referred to is that same one that they allege. "Perceived" is possibly inaccurate in that they don't necessarily actually perceive it; they claim to perceive it but arguably one or more of them might not really believe it exists but could be making it up for ratings, sales, etc. There are weasel words in that section, though: "a variety of prominent (peacock?) media figures and others" (who?) "a number of advertisers, retailers, government (prominentlyschools), and other public and secular organizations" (who?) "Some believe" (who?).

Incidentally, at some point it would be good to address the redlinks in the article. Nissenbaum[1] seems like he might meet WP:ACADEMIC, and I believe the Church League of America (1937-1980s) and Robnett would be. I should probably add the CLA to my userpage to remind myself. Skoros v. City of New York and the Lobby for Jewish Values I'd have to look up. Шизомби (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas trees in Israel

The article should perhaps consider mentioning the fact that it is very difficult to display Christmas trees in Israel without facing some type of social or religious pressure. This type of campaign against Christmas trees tends to replicate similar controversies about the public exposition of creches in the United States, which are often alleged to be products of secular Jewish activists within like-minded groups such as the ACLU. [2][3][4][5] ADM (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Article

This article is pure bias crap. Even the article as a whole doesn't seem to understand what the word controversy means. In sections like Retailer controversies, the entire section pretty much relies on the American Family Association. While: "On December 5, retailer Costco Wholesale Corporation was criticized by the AFA for failing to use the term "Christmas" in any of their advertising.[54] The AFA later claimed on December 15 that Costco had decided to incorporate the term "Christmas" into their advertising and local correspondence.[55]"

How is this a 'controversy' its a pretty much meaningless thing that happened, with its only references being by the APA. This article not only needs a more worldwide viewpoint, but needs TO STOP TURNING SOMETHING THE APA OPPOSES into A 'CONTROVERSY'. Its all garbage and completely off topic. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, some of the examples in the Retailer controversies section only cite AFA. But many cite news articles and other sources as well, indicating controversy. The 2009 controversy with Gap, for example, was covered in USA Today and various other news sources. We can certainly remove the examples that only cite AFA. You haven't noted any further concerns about bias or neutrality, so please voice them if you have any other concerns about the article. I have removed the retailer "controversies" that only cited AFA. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing info

The article is missing several things: 1. Mention of the expansion of the holidays' advertising to include Thanksgiving and New Year's, a primary, non secular reason for making the whole period a "holiday" season. 2. mention of how the "War" is perceived within the Christian church itself, ie, those Christians who consider it unChristian to pursue such boycots and aggressive behavior during the Christmas season, 3. a philosophical or pyschological look at why it's so important for certain types of people to come to the defense of the naming of Christamas, the hanging of the 10 commandments, and other related things that have little to nothing to do with the religious tenents of the belief itself.24.211.191.103 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tree at Rockefeller Center

The article states "As of 2008, there is no mention of 'Christmas' anywhere on the tree's official website." As of today, December 17, 2009, the term "Rockefeller Center Christmas tree" is used on Rockefeller Center's website (in addition to "The Tree at Rockefeller Center"). Also, the link to "the tree's official website" no longer works.

I am tempted to just delete the whole paragraph about this tree, but if this was true at one time it may be better to keep it as a historical statement. What say you all? --ChasFink (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As of today, that paragraph is giving false information and should be removed. I'll delete it, but if anyone wants to mention that there has been a historical controversy around the label for that tree, go right ahead and add it. The bottom line is that, as of right now, the info in that paragraph is not true and we have an obligation to remove it. 159.105.99.83 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize...didn't realize I was logged off when I wrote the paragraph above. That one is mine under IP 159.105.99.83 Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wood for the Trees

This entire article is navel-gazing, cultural-relativist liberal BS. Talk about a civilisation rotting from within. I'm glad I don't live in the anglo-sphere, sorry multicultural-sphere! Don't you over-educated nincompoops understand that the majority of working class people in your countries don't give a toss about your hand-wringing hair-tearing verbal diarrhea? I think a lot of frustrated people on both sides of the fence are just using this article as their own personal battleground to act out their epic pie-in-the-sky fantasies of societal change. How can I get a vote/debate going against this article's right to exist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.121.99 (talk • contribs)

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

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

We don't decide whether to delete articles based on whether a topic should logically exist and be a popular subject, we delete them based on whether the subject is notable and can be reliably sourced. The subject of this article is both notable and can be reliably sourced, whether you think its liberal propaganda or not. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Funny, I thought it was navel-gazing, Christian Dominionist conservative BS. I guess on balance, then, it's probably as close to NPOV as we can get. Combine that with the facts that it's notable and verifiable, I'd say any attempt at deleting the article will wind up in the keep column. That would be my vote, anyway. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If anything, I thought this article's very existence was to promote a conservative Christian POV that secular, liberal people were waging a war against their religious freedom. Perhaps this article is more neutral than I had assumed. Still, I'd rather see the whole thig get deleted. Sure, it's notable and reliably sourced, but it really overemphasizes the claim that this "war on Christmas" is a big deal. Just my opinion. I'd vote to eliminate the article, but I am only lukewarm about that vote and wouldn't initiate the process myself. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the intent of the "War on Christmas" movement (that is, those claiming such a war, not those waging it), the movement is undeniably notable. It's been the subject of numerous articles and television segments. If there are problems with POV, though, we'd appreciate your help fixing them. Powers ^T 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the article, but if anyone can speak on the neutrality of the article, it's me. I have tried, over the years, to move this article to a more neutral status. Initially, the article was titled "War on Christmas", and I initiated discussion to move it to the more neutral "Secularization of Christmas" title, then to the even more neutral "Christmas controversy" title, which allows the article to incorporate both present-day and historical Christmas-related controversy in general. The opening paragraphs are mostly all my work, and I tried to be as accurate and neutral as possible in discussion the present-day issues. The entire "Present-day controversy" sections are mostly my doing as well. Feel free to help make the article more neutral, but I believe it is as neutral as it ever has been. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just made an edit without realizing I wasn't signed in anymore. The one replacing "has been noticed" with "is felt by some" is mine. Apologies. Meservy (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "woodpile for the Yule log" not "wood for the trees"? (Is the reversal of wikt:see the forest for the trees intentional?) Regrettably notable far-right Christian manufactured controversy, as noted above, with roots in anti-semitism. I doubt if an AfD is warranted, and there have been two prior which were speedy keeps, as well as one merge and redirect from another article. Шизомби (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

worldwide...

the article currently has some sort of box that asks for worldwide/inclusive coverage of the issue. I would assume whoever put it there can remove it. I've never come into contact with this issue on a major scale outside North America. Most traditionally/historically Christian countries either have an established state church or lack any explicit non-establishment clause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.184.105 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop using the words "diversity" and "diversify". They are words used so often they have lost their meaning. Pluralism, I think would be a good replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.66.154 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

God Condemns Christmas Trees

The King James Version reads: "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." I think its from Jeremiah 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.42.11 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Read the very next verse. It very specifically mentions palm trees, not the average Christmas tree. I gotta wonder why everyone condemning use of Christmas trees leaves that verse out... Farsight001 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it says "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good." It's comparing them to palm trees, because in Arabic nations the palm tree is one of the few that are tall and straight, most share more charicteristics with bushes so it's using that as an example. 71.84.126.174 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter what type of tree it is? It would seem odd indeed to object to cutting down a palm tree and decking it with silver and gold, but not object to doing the exact same thing to a pine tree. There are a significant number of Christians who do object to Christmas trees on the basis of this verse, whether we think it matters what type of tree it is doesn't matter.--RLent (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

it matters if your worship them. not if you use decoration. since silver and gold isnt exacly AVIABLE to all people now are they? they are very expensive even at that time. so yes its idoltry. owning a piggybank is not idoltry. worshipping it is77.53.83.205 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

links

If the article is about Christmas we don't need all of this links pointing to other non-related crap. For example, why the hell is the word "pet" linked? We also don't need stuff like "New York City, "Greek Letter" "Public schools" "English" "Spanish" "Inclusive" "petitions" "retail" "mainstream media" and "customer service" linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.48.194 (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion over neutrality of article

I think the point of that assertion is that it is not only right-wing Christian fundamentalists that concern themselves with this issue. I know several non-Christians personally (including myself) that share that view. Perhaps I could find additional citations. To add, I've done some changes to the recent additions by Jaysweet and an anonymous IP user. Let's discuss any further issues here. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that we find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue, I actually agreed with most of your recent edits. You have been fairly measured in your modifications to my edits, e.g. you are probably correct to put "claimed" rather than "revealed" in the paragraph talking about AFA's lies about Home Depot... since nobody really has solid proof either way.

I still have a problem with the "atheists, Muslims, and Jews" section, though. I see one person claiming to be an atheist who supports this. Frankly, I think just about everyone who isn't a fundie who thinks there is a "War on Christmas" is terribly misinformed -- I mean, people say Merry Christmas everywhere I go, there are plenty of Christmas displays, etc.... But whatever. I'll get off my soapbox now.

I might be okay with wording to the effect of "Those who oppose this perceived censorship of Christmas include a number of individuals and organizations who adhere to a religion or philosophy other than Christianity", with the four cites all following that sentence. I am just not comfortable with saying that atheists and Muslims, when there is only a single citation for each. I don't want to give undue weight to the few scattered atheists who have bought into this.

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

Agreed. I have incorporated these changes. Just so you know, I have basically been the sole editor of this article for several months now, and I've been trying to edit it as neutrally as possible (albeit including any information that can be cited), so sorry if I came off as a bit snappy or possessive. And though the article may seem one-sided, this is an article about Christmas controversy, so there will generally be more sources of information about those who perceive a "censorship" or controversy, rather than sources about those who perceive nothing. But regardless of my personal POV, please rest assured that I've been pretty adamant in ensuring neutrality. I very much welcome any sourced material you may find from the opposing argument.

I'm very glad to see someone else editing here, and glad to see they are on the other side of the argument. We can certainly work together to make this article as neutral as possible. If you see any other issues or have new material, please feel free to discuss it all here, and together, we can ensure to steer the article more toward neutrality and professionalism. I understand that the "other side" might not be covered enough in the article, so I'd be glad to have someone assist in filling the gap... with sources of course :). Thanks for your interest in the article (haha, I'm saying this as if it's MY article).

Also in case you were wondering, I removed the "citation needed" tag from the "Spring Holiday" mention because it links to an article that explains the situation. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

pov tag

This article is entirely one-sided. It frequently cites the American Family Association, which is as far from a reliable source as it is possible to get. It uses isolated examples of people claiming to be atheist, Muslim, etc., to support the dubious conclusion that vast numbers of non-Christians are on board with this word policing. (And let's be clear, the word police are not the ones who choose to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", the word police are the ones who get their panties all up in a bunch of somebody else says "Happy Holidays" to them!) It contained at least one glaring inaccuracy -- corroborating AFA's claim about Home Depot, which was exposed as a falsehood. The only time it refers to the motivations of those who wanted to use the more inclusive "Holiday" instead of "Christmas", it says that they are motivated by political correctness, which is a loaded term with negative implications. And it does not at any time present the other side of the argument, that the people who are saying this are imagining the whole damn thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I am trying to fix the article but I think I feel too strongly about this issue to do so neutrally. On a personal note, my wife and I are both atheists, but I come from a Christian tradition and she comes from a Jewish tradition, so we are proud to celebrate both Christmas and Chanukah in December, as a way of honoring our roots and celebrating tradition. So for my family, "Happy Holidays" really is the most accurate -- and when people act like it's somehow offensive to say "Happy Holidays," I really want to kick them in the balls with a steel-toed boot. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the inherent anti-Semitism of the AFA's taking offense at Chanukah being acknowledged in ads? The same people that scream "NAZI!" every time anyone wants to do anything seem awfully intent upon expunging Jews from American culture. They don't make it a secret that they think black culture is inferior, but they do deny that they're anti-Semites. What about the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League's responses to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.204.16 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This article still has serious POV issues. I suggest eliminating it or doing a major revision. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Other holidays

I think the article should note the other holidays occuring at the same time including Hanukkah, Yule, Kwanza, and im sure theres some more, and that the midwinter period is a traditional time for celebrations. also a lot of Christmas elements are actually taken from the other holidays. Eg Christmas trees, holy, etc from Yule, Christmas lights/ candles from Hanukkah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Did Jesus exist?

Regarding recent edits about whether or not Jesus should be described as someone who "presumably" existed, let me say that there is oerwhelming historical evidence in the form of ancient leters and scripture (both religious and secular) that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. One could argue whether or not he was the Christ promised in the Old Testament. He may have been God's son or he may have just been a regular man, that is an issue of faith, but the guy did actually exist. I don't ever like to see Wikipedia describe faith items as if they were factually true, but I think it goes too far to deny that Jesus actually existed. I will undo this edit. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence and proof are two different things. The ancient letters and scripture that you have mentioned could simply have been written by people with an agenda - yes, it proves people were talking about Jesus, it doesn't prove he existed. People often talk about Batman and he doesn't exist either! StanPomeray (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We have the Scripture, but that was written a minimum of 30 years after the events it purports to describe. Please provide the letters and other evidence. Not just to Wikipedia but to academic historians, if you're sitting on a goldmine of theologically earth-shattering proportions, do please share.A Pedant (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Stan, I see your point about proof vs. evicence, but the evidence is substantial and is accepted by the majority of historians. It is clearly the minority view that Jesus never existed. I suppose there is no proof that George Washington existed either...all we have are letters and other documents (evidence). I'm all in favor of removing any statements that come from religious zealots who propose their faith as fact, but I just think it's difficult for any credible source to deny that Jesus lived. Perhaps it is fair to say there is no proof he existed, but that the overwhelming majority of historians concede the point.

Pedant, to your point, please research non canonical letters and sources regarding Jesus and early Christianity. You will see that there are plenty of sources, although they are weakened by the fact that none were written during Jesus' life. This isn't a good place for me to introduce you to early Christian history, so I'll leave you to research on your own. The bible is also a reasonable source of evidence, but it was clearly modified substantially during the first 1300-1400 years after Jesus' death. I would argue that the details of Jesus' life as described in the bible are difficult to characterize as reliable, but he probably did exist. Let me put it this way, why would they (early proto-orthodox Christians) make up the man Jesus? Clearly, the religion started through the work of Cefus, the two Marys and a small handful of others close to Jesus. Paul was probably more responsible for how Christianity emerged than anyone else. It's difficult for any historian to imagine any of these people gathering to secretly agree to make up Jesus. It is much easier to imagine that Jesus was a real man and these early Christians recounted or conspired to create the details of Jesus' life. The study of ancient history and textual criticism often rely on making logical connections and following the most likely path vs. the most complicated. Is all of this proof that Jesus existed? No. It is not, but I think there is enough evidence that it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion. In closing, I'll say that I'm not going to bother changing this again if anyone decides to describe Jesus as fake. I've made my case and used up all my interest in this point on this discussion. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps making a distinction between the historical jesus and the jesus of faith? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Secularization of Easter

There are similar controversies about the secularization of Easter, which is more important than Christmas from a liturgical point of view. It would be interesting if we could have some information on that too. ADM (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article already exists, it's called Spring Holiday. I lobbied to have the title changed to Easter controversy to fall in line with this article, but consensus was not reached in favor of that — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems ironic to me that someone would mention the secularization of what was originally a pagan holiday. Christians "stole" this one from the pagans (along with many of the holiday's traditions) and now complain that the holiday is becoming secular (which I think you define as anything non-Christian). The same irony exists with this Christma controversy. I wish more Christians would study the history of their religion. It's a rich and interesting history and it doesn't detract much from modern orthodox Christian ideaology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.99.81 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the traditions as time went on came from everywhere (It's on Dec. 25 for a reason) but if you're trying to argue for anything more than that, aka pagan borrowing BS, you need to check your primary sources.69.254.76.77 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

["It seems ironic to me that someone would mention the secularization of what was originally a pagan holiday." ]

Easter was never a pagan holiday. It's called "Pascha" (passover) not "Easter" in almost the whole world and dates as a Christian holiday from the 1st century. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe you might want to look up Ēostre. Powers ^T 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked up Eostre. The only known mention of a goddess named Eostre comes from the writings of Bede of Jarrow in the 8th century, and he says that the word "Easter" comes from the name of the 4th month of the year, and the month was named for a Goddess named "Eostre." And that is the sum total of everything known about any such goddess. And it's specific to England, and comes from a time when the Christian celebration of Easter has already been in existence fr 600 years. The name of the holiday is "Pascha." Even if the word "Easter" is from 'eostremonath," that does not mean the HOLIDAY is from paganism. That's like claiming that Good Friday is from the God Frigga, because that's where the word "Friday" comes from. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas controversy → War on Christmas — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) 'Christmas controversy' is not a term in use, whereas 'War on Christmas' is, widely and frequently. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is one main issue here, the so-called 'War on Christmas', plus a ragtag collection of largely unrelated historical issues surrounding Christmas.

The 'War on Christmas' is a modern phenomenon that should have its own article. The article under 'Present-Day Controversy' discusses the 'War on Christmas'. The 'Historical Controversy' is not related at all - the 'War on Christmas' describes what is in fact a campaign to preserve Christmas in the face of a perceived threat from secularists, whereas the 'Historical controversy' largely describes distinct historical campaigns against celebrating Christmas.

That 'War on Christmas' is a POV title is irrelevant - it is the title that is used by the people who discuss it, including those who think it is nonsense. e.g. [6]

There could possibly be a separate 'criticism of Christmas' page, but clearly the 'War on Christmas' is not part of that, because the 'War on Christmas' as described here doesn't relate to 'criticism' so much as 'perceived slights'.Sumbuddi (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• The history of these pages is quite convoluted, if I recall correctly. Apparently at one point, these two titles were two separate articles that ended up merged as the topics were too similar. Powers ^T 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The move would make sense if the article was just about the recent controversies, but the fact that it contains the historical controversies makes the arguments for the move not so relevant. Even if it didn't, "War on Christmas" is still unnecessarily POV, so this isn't really a good idea. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have "War on Christmas" as a redirect, so anyone searching on that will come here. I see no reason to change the actual name of this article to a pov name, since the article is not just about the alleged war on Christmas but about Christmas controversies in general, and there is no reason to assume that there are/will be no contemporary Christmas controversies that are unrelated to the 'War'. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thinking back to 2007

This article used to have a lot of references to Bill O'Reilly's allegations about various groups that were committing offenses against Christmas. As it turns out, most of his claims were spurious, and that's probably why they've been removed. But the fact that BO'R made all these claims seems germane to the article, yes? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How do we do that without the claims? I find this funny: [7] and [8] - Fox News, his employers, use "Happy Holidays" as their greeting it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we had the claims here earlier, so presumably they're in the archives. Give me awhile. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pew study

In a good effort to address a concern that I'd raised about sourcing and statements in the opening, User:Mistercontributer edit the sentence to read:

In the past, Christmas-related controversy was mainly restricted to concerns of a public focus on secular Christmas themes such as Santa Claus and gift-giving, rather than what is seen by the majority of Christians as the real reason for Christmas - the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

and sourced it to this Pew poll. This has several problems:

1. By placement, it looks like it is sourcing the whole sentence, but the poll says nothing about the history of Christmas controversies.
2. The poll is of Americans only, and thus not appropriate source for talking about "the majority of Christians" in this portion of the article, which is not US-specific.
3. The poll does not ask the question of whether they see the birth of Jesus as the reason for the holiday, merely if they see the holiday as a religious one.

Still, this is a much better source than what was there earlier. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the Pew study reference does not support every part that sentence, but you removed the other references which did support the other parts of that sentence. I will search for additional references for that sentence from other reliable sources. In my opinion (and I realize everyone has one), that sentence is critical, since that sentence explains one key aspect of the "Christmas controversy." Mistercontributer (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Even those sources didn't address the first half of the sentence at all, and I hope you can understand that the statements of one ministry and one columnist cannot be presumed to speak for the vast array of Christians as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And I hope you can understand when you remove references you should either add replacement references which support the sentence, or remove the sentence entirely, or add "citation needed" tag, instead of modifying the sentence to fit your view point. Mistercontributer (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I removed the references and the claim that they were apparently supposed to support. That the sentence and indeed the whole article that remains has claims not appropriately referenced is something that I might have addressed had I infinite time, but I do not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with title and opening

This article appears to be lumping together a range of individual controversies under a single umbrella and inventing a term for it. While searching certainly finds some examples of folks using the term "Christmas controversy" (although very few compared to a term like "War on Christmas"), these invocations generally seem to be referring to an individual controversy rather than some blanket situation, and in some cases to controversies that seem an ill fit to this article (such as this, or, even more so, this). Unless we find some external, significant, reliable source defining this term in such a way that matches our definition, I suggest we move away from the title and opening we are using now. The title should be some plural to be clear we are talking about a range of controversies (such as Christmas controversies or Controversies regarding Christmas) and the opening should not talk about the term, but merely that there are and have been controversies regarding the holiday of Christmas and the way in which public and private organizations choose to recognize and refer to it and involve people in Christmas-related activities. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk page archives for this article since the title issue was previously discussed and addressed. However, I agree the opening can be improved. This article is obviously a mess for the reasons stated above, but this article does serve a purpose, since it attempts to address a controversial subject from a neutral point of view. - Mistercontributer (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually have scanned through the archives going back to 2006 when this article took on this title (searching on the word "controversy"), and while I see objections to that title similar to what I have voiced, I find no justification for the claim that this is a term. Can you point me to what I missed? And far from being neutral, the title and structure of this article take the point of view that all of these disparate public incidents and discussions are a single issue. Absent any neutral source stating that it is so, this looks like POV... and absent any source connecting these various issues, it looks like original research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NatGertler's analysis. There is little connecting tissue among the diverse instances cited in this article, unless it would be a general wrangling about what Christmas "really" is. The "controversy" is about religion, and differing viewpoints of it, and how those views play out in larger society - essentially about what the place of religion is in society. The fact that all sides are POV does not bother me much, because the main purpose of WP:NPOV is to provide the means by which viewpoint can be presented and discussed neutrally in articles. A true adherence to that principle can indeed provide a beneficial contribution to WP. But "Christmas" represents only one point around which such contentions occur, so it is not surprising either that "Christmas controversy" does not much appear as a separate term. Title aside, there is only one way to knit the subject together in the article, and that is to stop treating it simply as a collection of news items. Those things are examples. But it is unifying research that can put them into perspective. It is therefore not surprising that the article has sometimes taken on an impression of WP:OR, but that only means that it is lacking the WP:RS research sources that will make this into a real article. Evensteven (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on this article's talk page archives, the title of this article was changed from "War on Christmas" to "Christmas Controversy" due to POV concerns with previous title. However, I would not have any objections to changing the title of this article again to "Christmas Controversies" to more accurately reflect the content of this article. Again, I agree this article is a mess due to concerns described above, but I would prefer to see these concerns addressed by improving this article instead of removing this article from Wikipedia. This article at least attempts to summarize the controversies surrounding the celebration of Christmas from neutral point of view, which I believe is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Mistercontributer (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We'd have to include the date controversy also of course. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with these comments as well. I see no reason for an AfD, but an appropriate rename would be desirable. I tend to prefer NatGertler's "Controversies regarding Christmas" to "Christmas Controversies" as a clearer description of the topic, though I can't quite conjure a title I would really consider to be of the essence. Btw, I agree with the 2005 opinion that "War on Christmas" can be considered POV. But I do have to wonder if that is not really the term by which this set of controversies is named out there. The world does not obey WP:NPOV (nor does it have to), and the title is meant to direct the WP reader to a subject in the most natural way possible. Is POV really the policy that should be held highest? But perhaps all that has been argued before. As for content, if it's a controversy connected with Christmas, I'd say it falls within the article's scope, and that would include the date too, if anyone wants to add it.

So assuming we now have dispatched these fundamental considerations, I would ask if anyone knows of actual WP:RS researched sources that consider and analyze and weigh the new items and blogs and shouts that get so much attention. The article is in so much need of actual research (instead of reporting) that editors may be sorely tempted to supply some. Good research is in fact what is needed. It's just that OR from editors cannot possibly be allowed to supply that lack. So where is it to be found? If I knew, I'd supply some. But perhaps it is worth asking whether or not there really is any good research on this. If not, a good article will not be possible, however desirable it might be. However much we might want one, if an article is impracticable, we might as well close up shop and consider AfD again. I confess that I find it dismaying that an article of 10+ years' standing has yet to produce a more solid foundation for its existence. I do have to question the viability of an article that, despite attention, remains in such lowly condition. There does come a time to cut dead weight loose. I suggest this comment for consideration, but with all due regard for the limits of my perspective here. Evensteven (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Christians who do not observe Christmas

An editor recently deleted some reference to Christians who do not observe Christmas, with an edit comment that suggested that such a thing did not exist. The edit has been appropriately reverted, but to stave off a recurrence, allow me to point any interested editor to this Jehovah's Witnesses article where it is explained why various Christians do not observe the holiday on any date. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

With such things in mind, I have also revised the article text a little in order to neutralize (somewhat) the overly-bald statement that may have caused the original objection. Evensteven (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that, far from neutralizing it, your edit had just the other effect. At no point in this article do we refer to Christians who celebrate Christmas as anything but "Christians"; putting those who do not celebrate into a category for merely being people who acknowledge themselves to be Christians is granting their Christianity less certainty. (And if anyone wants to argue that other people who deem themselves Christians might not see them as Christians, the mere existence of at least two groups that deem themselves the One True Church ensures that is true for every Christian.) I am reverting that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that, far from making remarks about who we think Christians are, that their self-profession as Christians is the most neutral thing that can be used. It is true that some other Christians may disagree about who is included in the category of "Christians", and that is why the original commenter (in the article) objected in the first place. I, as an Orthodox Christian, don't happen to think it is my responsibility to go around pointing fingers at who is Christian and who is not. In fact, that attitude is directly and forcefully opposed by Orthodox teaching as being judgmental, so please cast no aspersions. I am very definitely in the camp who wishes to preserve maximum neutrality here. I just don't agree with you that there is a "category for merely being people who acknowledge themselves to be Christians". There is no "merely" about it. Jehovah's Witnesses do not "merely" acknowledge themselves as Christians, and neither do I. That self-acknowledgement is important to all of us, and it is the only way we have of neutrally identifying Christians here on WP. Otherwise, there will always be some other "authority" defining who Christians are, and we both know how that won't work. The article text as it was has a neutrality problem, as evidenced by the commenter. As I changed it to be, I addressed that problem. If you have an alternate solution you think would work better, I'd like to see it in an edit, or perhaps in discussion. But I'd very much like to try (with you) to find something better than what the article used to say, for that was still problematic. Evensteven (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Under that logic, we cannot refer to anyone or anything as "Christian". If you need reliable sources that say that the JWs or any of the many other groups we list are "Christian" groups, I would have no problem providing them in droves, and referring to them simply as "Christian" fits in with WP:self-identification. That one IP editor was apparently ignorant of the facts is not a reason for this POV change. (As for whether it's POV, how would you feel if Orthodox Christians and only Orthodox Christians were referred to as "people who claim to be Christians"?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted Evensteven, that just looks awful - as though Wikipedia were saying "they aren't really Christians, they just call themselves Christians". Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler, you still seem to be under a mistaken impression about Orthodoxy. Please let me try to correct the notion that I have any problem with JWs calling themselves Christians, or that I have any intention of saying that only Orthodox are Christians. The latter is a misconstrual of what the Orthodox mean when they call Orthodoxy the One True Church, and in particular is an improper assumption - an extension of effect because some people do say "this person or group is Christian" and "another is not". The Orthodox Church does not do that by way of denigration. If some Orthodox do, it is to their own shame; it is nevertheless the nature of people to err. Please recognize it as erring, not as something accepted as proper by Orthodoxy.

@Dougweller, both you and Nat seem to dislike strongly what I wrote, so I'll withdraw it. I still think the article reads with a subtle jab at (all) Christians because some of them do not celebrate Christmas. I can't say, Nat, what the original commenter thought, but I can say that I am not in the least uninformed about JW beliefs in this matter and it still reads with a jab. Nor do I blame JWs for not celebrating it; I would think that, believing as they do about Jesus, that it would be consistent with their faith not to celebrate Christmas, at least as it is currently manifested, both secularly and religiously. In that matter, they are remaining true to their faith. I think you are both reading other things into what I wrote. However, I also think there are many reasons for that predisposition to be there, and I take your shared dislike as a sign that many other people would probably take it wrongly too. So I withdraw my edit. I don't think it was mistaken (inherently), but I do think it doesn't get the idea across. To call any of this issue a matter of POV is going beyond where I would go. Still, I would prefer a different language in the article that is more neutral than the status quo. It is not perfect. If either of you has a different approach, I'd love to be able to support it. Evensteven (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I presume you know, historically there have been and still are devout groups of Christians who don't celebrate Christmas, eg the Churches of Christ. And see Christmas in Puritan New England. I never thought of the wording as a jab against Christians and still can't see how it is. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I do know that. Even the early Christians didn't celebrate it, and it only grew gradually into an observance within Christianity (i.e., with church services) at all. It was never considered a prominent feast day until it became a pairing with the Theophany (Epiphany) on January 6th, the two both being observances of the incarnation. As to the jab, I just hope most others look at it that way. If no one is trying to be testy with it, then there is no jab. Perhaps I was looking at it suspiciously because this is an article where some might like to take a pot shot. And I don't like those, whichever direction they come from. Evensteven (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose Move to War on Christmas

I was surprised to see TWoC redirected to this article because TWoC is a term often used in recent years to describe the CC. Having an article of that name is not POV as there are plenty of RS using the phrase, not as a claim there is an actual war on Christmas, but because the subjects the sources cover use that term. WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline. I think this is very similar to The War On Women, for which we do have an article.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: The "war" title may be common enough out there for some things that fall into this article's purview, but I think it describes a narrower topic area, not the current one. Evensteven (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of something along the lines of "The War on Women?"Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Sorry for the revert, Nat. I wouldn't question the edit in another part of the article, but it's the lead sentence, and it seems to go against the (preferred) guidance of WP:LEADSENTENCE. Even then, such a departure from the norm is possible, but I don't see the talk page discussion mentioned in the edit comment. Perhaps I've missed something, but I'd like to be sure there is full consensus before we'd go ahead. In fact, I have no objection to the wording itself, and do not offer opposition to the idea of making this change. It might be best though, to try harder to find an acceptable way to stick with the normal form before departing from it. Evensteven (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The talk discussion is "Problems with title and opening", a couple above this one, where multiple people concurred with my analysis and none disagreed. The version of the opening that you have just reinserted basically invents a phrase to hang the article on, and makes the claim without support that this is a phrase that is in use. At best, it's merely a descriptive term, and thus falls under "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." in WP:LEADSENTENCE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that "Christmas controversy" is not a term we need to invent because we really aren't using it in the article. It appears three times in the article - the opening sentence where we define it, the sentence that starts The first documented Christmas controversy (the usage of which is not in accord with the opening sentence claim that this is all one controversy), and This remains a controversial example of "Christmas controversy", with critics attacking the use of the word "Winterval" as being political correctness gone mad, accusing council officials of trying to take the Christ out of Christmas, which is an unsourced claim (the source given at the end of the sentence is contemporaneous with the over-a-decade-past event, so it doesn't show anything about it remaining controversial) and, despite the quoting, the word "controversy" appears nowhere in the source, much less our invented phrase. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, reasonable points. Lead sentences can be touchy, and I just wanted to be sure there was oversight before using a less common alternate form. The discussion looks good enough to call it a consensus, and I have no problems with your text, which I have restored to the article. Evensteven (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

atheists and Merry Christmas

There seems to be an implication that atheists don't say Merry Christmas. That's true I'm sure of some but not all. The Times Square 2012 billboard[9] said "Keep the Merry, dump the myth" with a picture of Santa Claus. Christmas is an unusual holiday. As a child I remember nearby Jewish homes with Christmas trees. Some Hindus and Sikhs celebrate it[10] and even some Muslims[11] celebrate it. I wonder if [12] should be an EL? Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Germany

The section about Germany isn't correct. See this article by German media watchblog de:Bildblog. The district of Kreuzberg didn't rename those markets, the names were chosen entirely by the organizers themselves without any influence by local authorities. And there are still several christmas markets even in that district named "Weihnachtsmarkt" (christmas market). Essentially, Germany's biggest tabloid, Bild, took a quote by local administration about not giving permissions for public religious ceremonies in non-private spaces out of context and combined it with the differing name of this particular market, turning it into a newsstory about some kind of "war on christmas". They even included a quote from the local administration that explicitly said that christmas markets can be named whatever the organizers like. Unfortunately, other newspapers and media just ran with this story without factchecking it first. --95.90.51.227 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it happens, everywhere. We should be cautious about using any "news" or media sources on WP. Reliability is decreasing in general, and fact checking costs time and money, which is why the journalistic rush to get a story out there is often at odds with it. If a source is not a major organization capable of mounting that effort, we should be rather averse to using them as sources here. Also if they are capable but have flawed records, like many tabloids. This is not a particularly new thought (see WP:OTTO). I'd welcome the removal of such sources and info anywhere on WP. Evensteven (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Guardian source being used properly?

Given it is an opinion piece, I think it is overused at best.

"In recent decades in the United States, public, corporate, and the federal government mention of the term "Christmas" during the Christmas and holiday season has declined and been replaced with a generic term, usually "holiday" or "holidays," to avoid referring to Christmas by name and/or to be inclusive of other end-of-year observances such as Hanukkah and Kwanzaa" I'm unsure if it is reliable for such a statement being made in Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it didn't even make the claim it was being cited for, and it would not be a reliable source for that if it did. I deleted that line, and corrected the name of the opinionista in another citation of the same piece. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention of a Turkish youth group's protests in an Istanbul neighborhood in 2013

I trimmed the rather questionable content, but it was reverted by the editor that added it initially with the edit summary "It is proper weight considering that Turkey was the birthplace of Santa Claus himself." [13]. A Mediaite reference was added in the process. I'm not sure any of it belongs if it was restricted to a youth group in an Istanbul neighborhood. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First, according to the source, in 2013 there were two separate campaigns against Christmas and Santa Claus that took place in Istanbul. One by a city official and the other by a university youth group [14]. The latter is a branch of an important Islamic political party [15]. There have been expressions against Christmas in past years as well including last year. Opposition to Santa in Turkey is different than opposition in other countries because as the BBC (mistakenly) tells us, as well as many news articles, books, documentaries etc., Santa Claus himself was Turkish. Why would the Turks protest against their patron saint? If people in Italy were protesting against Saint Ambrose or Saint Januarius that would certainly be a lot more notable than if people in China were. But the reality is that Christmas and Santa in 99.8 percent Muslim Turkey are both entirely foreign imports from western culture and belong to the same category as other pop culture that has been introduced into that country. During Christmas time, it is not uncommon for journalists in Turkey to write articles condemning the celebration of Christmas, for it's foreign origin and for it's putative connections to paganism [16]. Again, the fact that Saint Nicholas (known as Noel Baba in Turkish, in order to avoid the Christian connotation of his name) was actually born in what is now Turkey, makes this more notable for an article entitled Christmas controversy.

As for opposition to Christmas in other Muslim countries we can make a list. Some Christians in Pakistan don't celebrate Christmas out of fear of violence. Brunei just initiated a law banning Muslims from partaking in Christmas celebrations with punishment of imprisonment. Aceh in Indonesia has banned Christmas and New Year's Day. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan has banned Father Frost (adopted from Soviet Russia) from their TV on the grounds that he is not their national symbol. In fact, celebrating Christmas by Muslims living in Christian countries is itself a controversial issue with Muslim scholars taking both sides, from not caring to strong disapproval.

Second, the title of this article is "Christmas controversy" and the subheading is "Present-day controversy." What exactly is the present-day controversy? Of course, the most common term we hear is the ubiquitous so-called "War on Christmas", and the conspiracy against it which comes every year from the conservative media. But the controversy also entails other important issues such as the prominence of Christmas in the context of multiculturalism, separation of church and state, consumerism, globalization, cultural imperialism etc. The introduction of Christmas in countries which are not Christian or which have no Christians at all and the controversies that arise therein are relevant to this article. If this were a serious article, these are the things that would be addressed.

But what does this article discuss? More than half of the article is spent on pointless things, such as a store saying "Happy Holiday" on their website or a local bank not putting up a Christmas tree in their lobby. Wow, how important. According to Ronz standard of what constitutes "due weight", most of the material in this article ought to be removed. Why he chose to single out this one issue, I do not know. -User99998 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of what you suggest is original research where information is cherry-picked to promote an assumed viewpoint.

Yes, the article is poor. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"The introduction of Christmas in countries which are not Christian or which have no Christians at all".

Turkey does not actually fit this description. Our article on Christianity in Turkey points that the country occupies an area associated with ancient Roman and Byzantine Christianity, holds the seats of two Patriarchates (Constantinople and Antioch), is the location of the Seven churches of Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and the First seven Ecumenical Councils took place in its area. Christmas is not a recent import there, it has older roots than Islam.

While the native Christian population has declined considerably since World War I, recent estimates speak of at least 160,000 Christians remaining. Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Christian population in Turkey today are a remnant of a few thousand people who will become extinct in the next forty years. The Turks, on the other hand, are a Muslim people who do not and have never given the Christian name "Nicholas" to their sons. The Christmas which many Turks today know and celebrate, and which many conservatives in the country condemn, is not based on any old tradition; but rather, it is a crude version of a holiday that they recently adopted from western Europe. The Turkish word for "Christmas" is the French word Noel. Turkey, then, does qualify as a non-Christian country to which Christmas has been introduced.

The fact that Christianity has a longer history there than Islam doesn't mean much; the same could be said for Iraq and Iran (there were 1.4 million Christians in Iraq before the war in 2003). Associating Turkey with a long-standing Christmas tradition is as exotic as the legend of Prester John. It doesn't exist, except in the minds of some western writers who distort the history of Christianity and Christmas there in order to keep the large Muslim country artificially oriented toward Western Europe. User99998 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christmas controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080203074331/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/toronto/story/2006/12/21/xmas-tree.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/12/21/xmas-tree.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061121055727/http://www.timetravel-britain.com/05/Dec/ban.shtml to http://www.timetravel-britain.com/05/Dec/ban.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Add France in this article

Same problem in Europe and especially in France. Nativity scenes (existing since the Middle age, and being a part of the country's traditions): removed and forbidden. Christmas celebrations called "winter festival" or "children celebration". But more and more cities celebrate officially Ramadan, so I don't see why they want to remove Christmas hollydays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:4454:FB31:D568:1FCF (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable news sources about that and we can add the relevant material. If you speak French and are able to gather some French sources about the subject, please post them here or feel free to add them and the France subsection to the article yourself. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a muslim myself, so correct me if I'm wrong, but one major difference between the way that Ramadan is celebrated and the way Christmas is (now) celebrated, is that Ramadan appears to be pretty much a religeous event with a celebration at the end, in which families are all involved. I don't see anyone being bombarded with adverts for it just after August Bank Holiday, nor do I see people spending thousands of pounds they haven't got on "Ramadan Presents" for kids who pester their parents 20 hours a day for the latest piece of plastic crap to be wrapped and placed under the tree. In short, Ramadan is a religeous event, Christmas is a massive marketing exercise in which everyone spends themselves into massive debt, and then gets incredibly drunk and over fed in the vain attempt to persuade themselves that their pathetic sorry lives have some meaning. Ironically anyone who dares to say that they don't fancy participating is labelled miserable ! And THAT is why I am perfectly happy to have Ramadan going on - nobody forces me to have anything to do with that. But Christmas? Bollocks to it. StanPomeray (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christmas controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231012234/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org:80/news.aspx?id=19377 to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19377
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720143459/http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489799 to http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489799
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224171158/http://backstoryradio.org:80/happy-holidays-a-history-of-the-season/ to http://backstoryradio.org/happy-holidays-a-history-of-the-season/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620223151/http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=887 to http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=887&terms=Christmas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"Percieved"

I think this article could use a whole lot more of the word "percieved", or other words or phrases to bring a little nuance to this whole issue. Right now the article reads like a political pamphlet by those who feel that they aren't acknowledged. For instance when it says "... because governments want to be multiculturally sensitive", that reads like someone else's phrasing the percieved motivation of said government. Half the time someone is accused of not acknowledging Christmas, the accused party isn't even aware of doing something wrong, and certainly won't rationalize their actions by acknowledging that they are fighting a war on Christmas.

To put it another way: The whole issue that some people feel there is a war on Christmas, while other people will say there is no such thing going on, is a fundamental and central part of the controversy which should be reflected in this article at least a little more. Right now, it mainly shows one side of the debate.

By extension, and to illustrate, I want to remind of the fact which is mentioned halfway down the article: that this is mainly an issue in countries like USA, Canada and England. Other countries where Christmas is celebrated (mainland Europe, central and South America, Australia), do not have a measurably higher level of usage of words like "Christmas" and "Jesus".

The phrases "holidays" for instance, are also used in such places, yet in those countries it isn't nearly as much an issue as in the USA. On the contrary, I rather suspect that the countries with the most religious expressions, who use the words Christmas and Jesus the most, are also the countries with the most people complaining that there's a war on Christmas.

In other words: this is not by far an objective problem or phenomenon. The existence of the problem hinges very heavily on wether people 'think/feel the problem exists. The War on Christmas is a percieved war on Christmas, and is more a feeling than an objective difference with other countries who celebrate Christmas. And if there is an objective difference (do Mexico, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia use the word Christmas more???) than it would be good to provide reliable sources for such a thing in the article. Lacking those sources, the article should reflect the subjectivity of this whole issue a lot more.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

At some point this article needs a complete rewrite from a scholarly, historical perspective, that emphasizes the political aspects of the so-called "controversy". --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Happy Holidays" preferred by Southern African Americans

See this which sites a poll. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. No objections for 7 days, and the proposer's rationale makes good sense. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Christmas controversy → Christmas controversies – I think this article has a bit of an identity crisis. Is it about the modern "war on Christmas" or various controversies related to Christmas? It leans towards the former, but is currently structured towards the latter. As such, it definitely meets WP:PLURAL's standard about "groups of classes of specific things", the things in this case being various Christmas controversies, such as intrareligious debates, state suppression, and culture wars. Seems straightforward to me, but since there's been previous discussion about the title, I'm seeking consensus first. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think you'll see any significant objections to the page name move. Go ahead and do it. Rockypedia (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public Religion Research Institute poll

Their 2016 poll might be useful.[17] It concludes by suggesting that the "skirmishes" might increase. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"Publick Notice" may be a modern forgery

Is there any documentation supporting the authenticity of the image at the top of the page? It references modern practices like "the exchanging of gifts," which wasn't a central part of Christmas celebrations until the 19th century. It also uses an f character instead of a nub-less long s, and it doesn't use the f at the beginning of "similar" as a 17th-century printer would have. It looks suspiciously like a modern forgery. Rexodus (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Christmas controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018121257/http://www.crlcommission.org.za/fightoverholidays.php to http://www.crlcommission.org.za/fightoverholidays.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513085841/http://www.crlcommission.org.za/icr_docs/public_holidays_recomendations.pdf to http://www.crlcommission.org.za/icr_docs/public_holidays_recomendations.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131212125639/http://www.vl.no/samfunn/7-av-10-vil-ha-skolegudstjenester/ to http://www.vl.no/samfunn/7-av-10-vil-ha-skolegudstjenester/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19377
• Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20140329054451/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/mich-capitol-conifer-re-christened-christmas-tree to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/mich-capitol-conifer-re-christened-christmas-tree
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113041919/http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489466 to http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489466
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317203716/http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489678 to http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489678
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://backstoryradio.org/happy-holidays-a-history-of-the-season/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christmas controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=0ed31bbd-b93f-488b-8a07-26e0fde358a7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525055426/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dunlapg/Xmas_and_Christmas.html to http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dunlapg/Xmas_and_Christmas.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119024910/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/7/121624.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/7/121624.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921233223/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/9/134058.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/9/134058.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few hours ago, I challenged and removed a sentence of text as unsourced opinion. User:MjolnirPants, under his alternate name MPants at work, restored it, providing a reference. I rejected the reference and removed the sentence again. He moved it to another lead-section location (which changes its context and meaning). Two separate questions, one set of reversals each. Yet he raised the specter of edit war (which I do not do) and claimed 2RR. Unfriendly. Look over the issues if you are interested.

My interest has shifted. Go to page User talk:MjolnirPants and press the New Section button, as I did to discuss the unfriendliness. Keep in mind the 4 admonitions at the top of this talk page: 1) be polite and welcoming, 2) assume good faith, 3) avoid personal attacks, and 4) for disputes, seek dispute resolution. If you would, please, let us all know what you think of what you find presented on the edit screen at this user talk page. I'm not new here, but I've been absent for a couple of years because of incidents like this. I would specifically like to know if this editing community feels a submission to ANI is warranted, and what you would expect as a result. You see, in my view, MPants's behavior is an editing community issue involving what is and what is not acceptable on WP. I am aware that some editors are tolerant of this kind of thing. I am also aware that some editors leave and never come back because of it. What's it worth to you? After two years, I'd like to get a quick update on the state of editing discipline. I'm not going to attempt to discuss the article issues above under the threat of MPants's expressed attitude, because there will be no benefit, regardless of which way the article goes. First things must be put first.

Please respond. I will take tomorrow to decide what steps I take next, and then things will go where they go. But I expect this issue to be familiar to anyone who edits controversial articles, and any responses may help others also to clarify their own opinions. And the decisions you all reach will determine who will be around here, editing in times to come. It's another opportunity to consider what kind of community you want to have. Evensteven (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Welp, I guess the next step would be to discuss the matter, or at east this post, at WP:AN/I. The thread would be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_trying_to_recruit_others_to_harass_me_at_my_talk. Apparently they forgot to notify you. I am dumb--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

<@Dlohcierekim: That's not right, the notification was made. I don't know why you think it wasn't. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So, wait... instead of trying to discuss the editing of the article here on the article talk page, you are trying to line up editors to go harass someone on their user talk page?? No. Very no. I heartily suggest that you retract that request, and perhaps go review WP:BRD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as I'm back here, I agree with Nat.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I'm sure I've done worse. I also agree with Nat. I'm also wondering what sort of steps User:Evensteven is contemplating. If he's thinking of threatening legal action, he'll be blocked. Whatever, his statement is a bit chilling. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Lede 2: Electric Boogaloo

It didn't seem like the editor who objected to this edit was going to get this going anytime soon, so I'm starting now.

First off, let me say that there is no policy requirement that we use a "scholarly" source for such a claim. I'm open to a good argument as to why we should, but for now at least, I'm not convinced. I looked through some of the existing sources (not all) and could find many that explicitly mentioned "multicultural" sensitivities, and many that explicitly mentioned objections to 'certain' approaches to acknowledging Christmas. I didn't check all of the sources, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was explicitly stated in a large number of them. Plus, it was trivially easy to find a supporting source. I think if a statement is easy to source, could well have been WP:SYNTH from multiple existing sources, and might very well be supported by a number of sources used in the article, that represents a very uncontroversial statement.

In addition, I'm unsure as to what objection a person could possibly have to this. It's a well documented fact that many people object to certain methods of acknowledging Christmas. It's further a well-documented fact that such methods are intended to be multiculturally sensitive. Finally, it's an explicitly sourced and well-documented fact that many people object "...to government or corporate efforts to acknowledge Christmas in a way that is multiculturally sensitive."

Even if an editor is one who does object to such acknowledgements (and we should be prepared to admit that Christmas is a predominantly Christian holiday and so such objections are not entirely without merit), I don't see how this phrasing or this claim is at all objectionable. It merely documents your concerns. I suppose it may be read as implying that such people object to multiculturalism generally, but that's quite a stretch, and not really the concern of an encyclopedia.

So all in all, I don't see any need to source this statement. But if it's likely to be challenged, we must. Therefore I did. I'll await a reasonable argument as to why this content should be excluded. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ack, didn't see this when I saved. Started writing the below before this was posted. I'm generally of the mind that something shouldn't be added unless there's a source directly supporting it somewhere (with the lede summarizing the article). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, there's a dispute over whether or not the lede should say This often involves objections to government or corporate efforts to acknowledge Christmas in a way that is multiculturally sensitive. Recap of events and discussion thus far:

1. That bit was removed from the lede removed by Evensteven, with the reason Remove unsourced opinion, which introduces bias in the article
2. It was then added again with a ref by MjolnirPants (via MPants at work), with the reason added ref; this is relatively uncontroversial even without a ref, but since someone objected, here it is.
3. It was removed again by Evensteven, with the reason source not WP:RS for this purpose: a news report is not scholarly material, and only qualifies to substantiate recent news with verification
4. It was restored by MjolnirPants, with the reason this is not a medRS claim. If you object to the sourcing, take it to talk; don't edit war. You're now at 2RR.

Now, IMO, the contested portion, if included, does dovetail with the previous sentence Some opponents have denounced the generic term "Holidays" and avoidance of using the term "Christmas" as being politically correct. It would be better if it was summarizing the body (not that that disqualifies it), but the closest I can start to find is Brimelow, O'Reilly and others claim that the word Christmas is increasingly censored, avoided, or discouraged by a number of advertisers, retailers, government (prominently schools), and other public and secular organizations. Saying "Holidays" would obviously include Christmas as well as Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, etc, so I can see how easy it is to conclude that the motivation is anti-multiculturalism. Having grown up around conservatives and fundamentalists, though I know that some of them imagine that synonymous motivations are somehow distinct, and some even manage truly distinct motivations (like wanting any and all holidays that might be celebrated by the local population mentioned by name). That said, those conclusions (even if my experience agrees with them) are original research if presented without reliable sourcing.

The Toronto Star is an RS and this is a claim where journalistic sources are about as acceptable as academic ones. The TS is the most widely circulated newspaper in Canada, which gives it some degree of due weight. I'd be more comfortable with one or two more national or academic sources covering this claim as it is currently phrased. "Often" implies that this occurs more than "sometimes," which could use some stronger sourcing, but "sometimes" is plenty vague.

@MjolnirPants: Could you present some additional sources?

@Evensteven: Could you think of a rephrasing for this sentence that you and MjolnirPants would be equally disappointed satisfied with? Or could you present some comparable sources for a counter point?

Or if y'all want to try to swap questions (Evensteven looking for sources for the current phrasing, MjolnirPants trying to rephrase it and coming up with a counter point), that might be a way to build some bridges here (between opinions, I'm not expecting y'all to address each other here*).

*^{Actually, it might not be the worst idea if y'all only address third parties in this. And like, no passive aggressive "I really was talking to him, not you" comments. Not suggesting a real IBAN or anything, just looking for ways to prevent stress here. Whatever, y'all grown.}

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, Ian: check out {{ilfn}}. It does the same basic thing you did there for the last line. Regarding that last line, see this exchange at Doug Weller's talk. Neither one of us is interested in fighting. I don't know if EvenSteven was also saying they're not interesting in arguing the content, but I'm perfectly fine with discussing content. I've done pretty much this exact bit several times before: someone takes offense, starts drama, realizes it's not worth the drama, we make nice, we discuss content. In truth, I've never done this and not found a consensus that actually made everyone happy. It's been my experience that forgiving people -even in a grudging "I'm too old for this shit" kind of way- is a powerful motivator for continued getting along. Besides, I don't hold grudges.

Second: Regarding more sources, that's no problem: This snopes article confirms it, this snopes article mentions it, this business insider piece mentions it, this (probably non-RS) piece satirized it, this (almost certainly RS) also satirizes it, this local news piece mentions it, this article mentions it and so on and so forth. As I said, it's trivial to find sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, then. Unless I see some good arguments from anyone else, I'm not seeing reason not to include it at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick note: For the record, I consider a source to be explicitly supporting it if the source both mentions why certain parties use "happy holidays" or "season's greetings" and mentions that there's push back against them. That's not synthesis, as the content didn't say the complaints were due to the multiculturalism, only that they were about the multicultural versions of "merry Christmas"*. I considered it synth if I had to look from one source to say they're multicultural or culturally sensitive greetings, and another to say there's push back. But even then, as there's no causal relationship being posited, we could conceivably put the latter source right after "This often involves objections" and the former source at the end. So it's synth only by an extremely strict reading.

And as for it's appropriateness to the lede: it summarizes pretty much the entire "Present day controversies" subsection on the US.

^*

And for what it's worth, I still prefer "Merry Christmas".

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: "It didn't seem like the editor who objected to this edit was going to get this going anytime soon". It's ok; go on without me. I've decided to move on. Evensteven (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

False information

The paragraph about the celebration of Christmas in primarily Muslim countries contains false information.

It cites Turkey as being 99.8% Muslim - the religious demographics show 82% Muslim, 2% Christian and 13% non-affiliated. (see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpw1971az (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the claim, as it was not in the possibly questionable and certainly dead source that was being used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Those numbers come from a polling sample and not from any official statistics. According to the Turkish government, 99.8 percent of the population of Turkey is nominally Muslim. Studies have shown that non-Muslims represent 0.2 percent of the population.[18] At any rate, the source was not referencing this but the Muslim opposition to Christmas. --User99998 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

China

The section about China isn't correct. Simply, I live in China, and never seen any government official depressed Christmas, like in Japan, just business（我在中国没有遇到政府层面的对圣诞节的压制，不如说政府完全不关心，都是商业）. Meanwhile, there was dissention among the Chinese public opinion（民间对圣诞节的看法不一，不能只选择其中的偏驳或激进论点）.

see also: https://investexglobal.com/commentary-china-doesnt-deserve-its-bad-rep-over-christmas/

and,

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/24/china-cracks-down-on-christmas-celebrations
This article’s headline and opening paragraph were amended on 26 December to clarify the breadth of the crackdown on Christmas.

😂 User talk:观赏植物 10:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

which, in western churches, is held annually on 25 December - bad wording

It's not obvious what this means. I presume it refers to the various dates used by Eastern Orthodox Churches, but then I know about the different dates they use. Also, in Sweden the celebration itself is mainly Christmas Eve, see Christmas in Sweden and this. Ditto Denmark, Finland, Norway, Estonia, etc - looks like much of Central Europe as well. In any case, why are we specifying churches instead of countries? Doug Weller talk 14:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose Move to War on Christmas (2019)

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

I think what you are suggesting is not a move but a new article War on Christmas leaving s small section in this article as a summary of the new article. I can see some merit in that. Loved this.[19] Doug Weller talk 11:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Mess up pinging User:Sjlebl. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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