Talk:Christmas controversies/Archive 2

Need for this article

 * The phenomenon of the "secularization of Christmas" may be too vague to describe beyond individual perceptions of propriety. It will be easier to discuss the more specific "War on Christmas" in an encyclopedic manner as it is framed by verifiable sources. The problem we're having with everyone's little anecdotal contributions to War on Christmas isn't that they're off-topic, but that to put them there without attributing their significance constitutes original research. Making a separate article of the larger topic invites original research and ultimately constitutes an unsupportable POV. Without verifiable sources, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition with a POV attached. --Dystopos 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about merging it with the Happy Holidays article (stub)? That term seems to be a common thread. keith 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays seems like a perfectly comprehensive little article and it would be a shame to pollute it with this op-ed. --Dystopos 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole business is oxymoronic, anyway. Christmas cannot be "secularized" because removal of "Christ" leaves us with a generic end-of year celebration, the likes of which historically preceeded Christmas (and persist today). What is percieved as the "War on Christmas" is simply an affirmation that christians have not yet dominated humanity, we are still free to celebrate the passage of time as we see fit. --El stiko 13:01, 6th January 2006 (AEST). Might I add I wished I could've found a friendly way to add this observation to the actual entry. Some wishes just can't come true. I'm too cranky today.


 * I think the idea "secularization of Christmas" covers the topic much better than "war on Christmas", but I think what this article really needs is more evidence of the phenomenon - do we know of any stores which instructed employees (with verifiable documentation) to wish people "happy holidays"? Are there any city councils deciding not to do nativity scenes in favour of something else? Willardo 10:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Finding individual examples of using a festivus pole instead of a nativity scene in front of city hall is not necessarily part of a "secularization of Christmas" unless you apply the POV of those who criticize such decisions. Furthermore, to avoid original research, you have to be able to verify from other sources not only particular events, but the connections between them that make them examples of this topic. (Unless you find a City Council proclamation saying "Whereas we wish to participate in the secularization of Christmas...." -- That's why it's easier to write a good article about "War on Christmas" - that topic has verifiable definitions that don't require original research. --Dystopos 17:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think that there are two phenomena here that require (probably) different articles -- One is the movement away from overt religious symbolism in certain places, the other is the political reaction to that. I agree that there is a political campaign to connect these disparate events and beat them up as some 'war on Christmas', but I think that there is also a sociological event occuring.  We don't have to accept that it is an 'organised liberal campaign against Christmas' to see that something is changing in public culture.  Both these topics need good NPOV articles (though yes, doing such without original reserach is difficult).
 * I think we are in agreeement, then. My proposal is that until we have some verifiable sociological study to cite, that this article should remain a VERY brief outline of a disputed topic, mainly directing people to "War on Christmas" and making clear that the very existence of such a thing is controversial. --Dystopos 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, all good. I guess my only problem with the 'War on Christmas' page is the title -- I know it is clunky, but wouldn't 'The theory of the War on Christmas' or 'The War on Chrismas Conspiracy' take the POV out of the title? Willardo 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's sort of tricky. On one hand, you want to indicate that the article is about a disputed subject. That's usually done by redirecting POV titles to more neutral ones (i.e. Black Jesus redirects to Race of Jesus). On the other hand, one wants the article to be something that people would most naturally search for or link to. I'm not sure what's best. --Dystopos 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

POV
The POV question centers around whether there is anything verifiable to say about this, beyond defining the idea, that isn't already covered by War on Christmas. If there is anything, then it would have to be sourced, and not original research. You can't just have two articles referring to each other without anything to say. Is there, in fact, a secularization of Christmas? Who's doing it? Who says so? --Dystopos 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)