Talk:Christmas controversies

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)Reply

How do we do that without the claims? I find this funny: [2] and [3] - Fox News, his employers, use "Happy Holidays" as their greeting it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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[4] 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[5] and even some Muslims[6] celebrate it. I wonder if [7] should be an EL? Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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." [8]. 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)Reply

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 [9]. The latter is a branch of an important Islamic political party [10]. 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 [11]. 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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)Reply

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply