Talk:Thanksgiving/Archive 3

Thanksgiving in the Netherlands
The Thanksgiving Day service is held annually at the Pieterskerk in Leiden.

See http://www.pieterskerk.com/index.cfm?act=agenda.detail&agendaitem=663 and http://amsterdam.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/8BBMKYCgGYSoLrkQdWYu0w/Leiden_thanksgivingservice_092.pdf

Chrrr (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Christian

The page indicates that the service is held in the Hooglandse Kerk. This is a different church from the Pieterskerk and this information is not correct. The first information (Pieterskerk) is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.222 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The two churches (Hooglandse Kerk and Pieterskerk) are both gothic and no more than 500 m apart. The confusion is understandable. Pieterskerk is the one, though. Note that one of the alleys very nearby the Pieterskerk is named Pelgrimspoort - or Pilgrim's gate. As for Canadian Thanksgiving: yes, we eat turkeys, too. 72.37.244.44 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Made the correction since no one else did. The service is indeed held in the Pieterskerk. Take it from a guy whose father participated in the recent renovation of this church. Wikidewiking (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference in the text to "Pieterskerkchurch" is wrong and should be "Pieterskerk church" or just "Pieterskerk", meaning "peter's church" in Dutch. As it stands now, it means "Peter's church church". The article referred to is correct. Jossysayir (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed The Netherlands from the list of countries in the infobox. This article refers to thanksgiving as a national/cultural holiday (cfr 'type') and as noted in the article itself, it's only celebrated in a single church (out of 648), and apparently even organised by/for American expats. Including "The Netherlands" in the "observed by" list would imply it's a nation wide holiday (as it seems to be in the other entities on that list, cfr their sources), which it currently isn't. -- MiG (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Official date established for Thanksgiving
John Hansen, the first president of our country, who was elected in 1781(Washington voted for him), established Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of November. However, upon visisting the Wikipedia search for John Hansen, I found that you do not consider him our first president, and do not mention that he did indeed establish an exact date for Thanksgiving. Why? We were a country for 12-14 years before our present Constitution. We haven't discarded our Declaration of Independence because it happened before our present form of government, so why do we get rid of other parts of our history prior to the Constitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.61.117 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move
There are over 1000 articles that link to Thanksgiving, and overwhelmingly they really mean Thanksgiving (United States). Therefore I propose making Thanksgiving a redirect to Thanksgiving (United States) and changing the hatnote on Thanksgiving (United States) to point to Thanksgiving (disambiguation) to handle the few cases that don't mean the US version. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Amended proposal: It would be better to rename this article Thanksgiving (celebration), redirect Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving (United States) and use a hatnote on Thanksgiving (United States) along the lines of "Thanksgiving" redirects here. For an overview of the celebration, see Thanksgiving (celebration). For other uses, see Thanksgiving (disambiguation). Colonies Chris (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Many of those articles do mean Thanksgiving (United States) (although "overwhelmingly" is fairly hyperbolic). But many of them also refer to the celebration in general (Autumn, Cranberry, Sweet potato, etc.).  A few also refer explicitly to Canadian Thanksgiving (e.g. Samuel de Champlain).  Having this last article (and perhaps others like it) link directly to Thanksgiving (United States) seems like a mistake.  The best solution would probably be to go through the links, and update any that are referring explicitly to the American Thanksgiving celebration to link directly to that page, and likewise for Canadian Thanksgiving.  Pages that refer generally to the celebration of Thanksgiving could remain linked to the main Thanksgiving page.  But I think it's a mistake to make Thanksgiving redirect to Thanksgiving (United States). &mdash; P urple   RAIN  16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, someone would go through all the linked articles and correct the links, and keep doing that whenever a new article appears that links to Thanksgiving. Are you volunteering to do that? The reality is that overwhelmingly (the word is appropriate) the intended meaning is the US celebration. If we leave things as they are, most links will be wrong, If we move the articles as I propose, only a few links will be wrong, and correcting those will be a much smaller task. There are plenty of precedents for this - for example, Gibson, which redirects to the most common meaning, Gibson Guitar Corporation, or Everest, which redirects to Mount Everest. Disambiguation applies where "one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought". That is clearly the case here. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I concede. I reviewed a few more of the links, and "overwhelmingly" may be more appropriate than I thought.  It probably does make sense to make Thanksgiving redirect to Thanksgiving (United States).  But there should be something at the top of the Thanksgiving (United States) article to redirect those who are looking for the generic or other national celebrations. &mdash; P urple   RAIN  18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This proposal concurs with my impression the first time I realized that this article discussed a generic Thanksgiving. I think a healthy discussion on what to move the old generic Thanksgiving article is in order. It might be Thanksgiving (celebration) or Thanksgiving (holiday) or Thanksgiving (observation) or some such reference to religion, custom, culture, or society. I will give it some thought later. I like to saw logs! (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected
This article appears to be semi-protected, rather than Move-protected, but there is no Move tab on it, so I presume an admin is needed. What's needed, as agreed above, is:
 * rename this article "Thanksgiving (celebration)"
 * redirect Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving (United States)
 * add a hatnote on Thanksgiving (United States):

Colonies Chris (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Padlock-olive-arrow2.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested 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) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving → Thanksgiving (celebration) – What's needed, as agreed above, is: Colonies Chris (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * rename this article "Thanksgiving (celebration)"
 * redirect Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving (United States)
 * add a hatnote on Thanksgiving (United States):


 * Oppose US Bias. There's a pretty prominent Thanksgiving in Canada. This article either stays here, or a disambiguation page appears here, the US article should not move here, nor should this title redirect to the US article (which seems to violate WP:AT anyways, since redirects from primary name to parenthetical disambiguated name are not supposed to be done) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above. I'm not suggesting that the Canadian Thanksgiving is unimportant or secondary, just that almost all existing links to Thanksgiving actually mean the US version, so that's where Thanksgiving should redirect to. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * sofixit Then fix the incoming links, if they link incorrectly, they should be fixed. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering? It's very easy to say 'somebody should fix them'. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who pointed it out, and you want someone else to fix it. You've been around for a while, so I'll expect you have AWB, so you should be able to do it. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the undisambiguated term should refer to the celebration in general, and specifically the aspects that are shared between American and Canadian Thanksgivings (which are legion). Powers T 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion above. Almost all existing links to Thanksgiving actually mean specifically the US version, so that's where the link should redirect to. Very few of them are concerned with the celebration in general. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the links should be fixed. Powers T 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering? It's very easy to say 'somebody should fix them'. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that links are incorrect is no reason not to place an article at the proper location. It's a non-sequitur.  Links can be fixed, the same way we fix other errors in the encyclopedia.  Powers T 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. There are plenty of precedents for this - for example, Gibson, which redirects to the most common meaning, Gibson Guitar Corporation, or Everest, which redirects to Mount Everest. Disambiguation applies where "one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought". That is clearly the case here. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I still view Thanksgiving (United States) and Thanksgiving (Canada) as sub-articles of this one, not as separate topics. This article is the main one; the others just expand and elaborate on the topic with regional details.  Powers T 12:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's precisely why I'm suggesting that this article should be renamed Thanksgiving (celebration), so that its general nature is explicit but we still recognise the reality that almost all existing references to Thanksgiving mean the US version. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would not make sense to have a subarticle at the base name. Powers T 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a subarticle at the base name. I'm proposing redirecting the generic term "Thanksgiving" to the overwhelmingly most common specific use of the term, with a note on the target to guide those few people who are actually looking for a general discussion or for some other specific meaning of the term. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting the base name to a disambiguated title is nonstandard and would quickly be changed, despite your best intentions. And regardless, the effect is the same; the base name should direct readers to the base topic, not a subtopic.  Powers T 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This page is currently written as a broad concept article about the Thanksgiving holiday in general, while Thanksgiving (United States) is just primarily how the holiday is observed in the U.S. Thus, it does not make sense to make the more specific article the primary topic over the board concept article. Again, as pointed out by others, links can be fixed to point to the right subarticle. Just because these links has not been fully cleaned up yet is not a sufficient reason for a page move, IMO. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (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.

Germany
Hey The german "Erntedankfest" is not quite the same as thanksgiving. It is not a big family celebration with special food, some free days, parades and so on. Moreover the german (catholic) parishes are not forced to celebrate the Erntedankfest, but it is usual in most of them. Officially it is no part of the church year. And the Oktoberfest is absolutely unimportant for the celebration of Erntedank because out of Bavaria only few german people are interested in the Oktoberfest. Best wishes 93.233.19.225 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln in the 20th century?
In section 1.3 Fixing the date of the holiday, in the second paragraph there reads "The final Thursday in November had become the customary date of Thanksgiving in most U.S. states by the beginning of the 20th century. And so, in an effort by President Abraham Lincoln (influenced by the campaigning of author Sarah Josepha Hale) to foster a sense of American unity between the Northern and Southern states, proclaimed the date to be the final Thursday in November."

I could be wrong but, I thought the 1800's, when Abraham Lincoln lived and served as the 16th Presidnt, was the 19th century. And in reading the history of the holiday that preceeds this portion of the article it would make sense that the sentence should read "The final Thursday in November had become the customary date of Thanksgiving in most U.S. states by the beginning of the 19th century. And so, in an effort by President Abraham Lincoln (influenced by the campaigning of author Sarah Josepha Hale) to foster a sense of American unity between the Northern and Southern states, proclaimed the date to be the final Thursday in November." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjsmith728 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Non sequiter
In paragraph 11, one paragraph past the "Fixing the date of the holiday" heading, there is mention of fixing the day of Thanksgiving to a singe day around the country, and a date is given. It is said to have been done by presidential proclamation, but no president is mentioned in the sentence. The next sentence states that by the twentieth century it was celebrated on the last Thursday in November. The following sentence starts with "and so", but then references Abraham Lincoln. Read together these three sentences make no sense.

"The first Thanksgiving celebrated on the same date by all states was in 1863 by presidential proclamation. The final Thursday in November had become the customary date of Thanksgiving in most U.S. states by the beginning of the 20th century. And so, in an effort by President Abraham Lincoln (influenced by the campaigning of author Sarah Josepha Hale) to foster a sense of American unity between the Northern and Southern states, proclaimed the date to be the final Thursday in November."

"The final Thursday in November had become the customary date of Thanksgiving in most U.S. states by the beginning of the 20th century."

This particular sentence, above, makes no sense within the context of the other two. Its clear that Lincoln set the date as the last Thursday in November, and it says that everyone celebrated on the same day that year, and implies it continued to be so. Why would it then be necessary to make, and effectively contradict this with, a statement that by the beginning of the twentieth century most states had thanksgiving on the same day? Where not all the states following the proclamations? If that's the case then the first unified Thanksgiving date was not the last Thursday in November of 1863, it was some time well into the twentieth century.

Maybe it should read: "The first Thanksgiving celebrated on the same date by all states was in 1863 by presidential proclamation. In an effort by President Abraham Lincoln (influenced by the campaigning of author Sarah Josepha Hale) to foster a sense of American unity between the Northern and Southern states, proclaimed the date to be the final Thursday in November."

Or perhaps like this:

"In an effort by President Abraham Lincoln (influenced by the campaigning of author Sarah Josepha Hale) to foster a sense of American unity between the Northern and Southern states, proclaimed, in 1863, the date for Thanksgiving to be the final Thursday in November. The final Thursday in November had become the customary date of Thanksgiving in most U.S. states by the beginning of the 20th century, however the first Thanksgiving celebrated on the same date by all states was not until near the middle of the 20th century"

I'm not the historian here so I don't know which version is true, however I know both cannot be true, and the grammar currently in place makes it ambiguous as to what is what. I suspect that the actual intended meaning of what is written is more complex and requires more explanation, but as it stands it makes no sense.

64.128.203.162 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Neofinetiafalcata

THE TRUE
This one is the real origin of the tradition..

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/opinion/09horwitz.html?pagewanted=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What about this story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/the-true-story-of-thanksg_b_788436.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false? True or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.244.204 (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving a Christian holiday?
I notice that this article has been placed in the "Christian holidays" category. On what basis? The article contains no mention of any religious significance to the holiday, and though Christian churches often hold services on Thanksgiving, they also hold services on New Year's Day, and that's not classified as "Christian". The holiday is celebrated unaltered by non-Christians and is not celebrated by Christians around the world. I'm removing the category; if there is any dissent, I would be glad to hear about it here. —LinkTiger (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church considers it obligatory for Catholics to attend mass on the first of January. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving as a national observance of gratitude to the God as protector/provider
President George Washington made the following proclamation in New York City in October of 1789. It seems to me that this proclamation was an indication that our nation's leaders at the time were mindful of the season we now observe as the holiday, and that it was definitely an expression of religious i.e. Christian devotion to God as both protector and provider.


 * "WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
 * NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.
 * And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.


 * GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine."


 * (signed) G. Washington

96.11.193.23 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

98.249.35.103 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First sentence?
"Thanksgiving Day is a holiday set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year and is celebrated through feasting and prayer; it is celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada." Sure, it has some sources, but you can find sources for all kinds of stuff. Isn't this POV? As far as I've understood it, thanksgiving isn't really a hardcore Christian tradition, especially not its history, and thus mentioning "God and prayer" like that in the opening sentence seems really weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.89.129 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Thanksgiving is primarily a secular holiday. While it's a religious thing for some people, it is primarily a harvest festival which isn't inherently religious.98.249.35.103 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed revisions to the lede
Dear User:JimWae, I would request that you first find reliable sources for your edits before inserting them. In the mean time, you have been reverted. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have & they are already given--JimWae (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your addition of the Encyclopædia Britannica reference. As far as the comment on religion, that might be better suited in the "history" section, rather than in the lede. I've removed it from the lede but do not object its addition elsewhere. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, if we are stating the religious aspect in the lede, we cannot be exclusive to that POV when there is support for other context - also see http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/american/Thanksgiving#Thanksgiving_4. Please revert yourself - I think you are already on the 3RR edge--JimWae (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:JimWae, where in that reference is support for another context? Could you please provide the quote your are referring to? With regards, AnupamTalk 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave the source WITH the sentence. Don't you read what you revert?--JimWae (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As the country became more urban and family members began to live farther apart, Thanksgiving became a time to gather together. The holiday moved away from its religious roots to allow immigrants of every background to participate in a common tradition. Thanksgiving Day football games, --JimWae (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read the Encyclopædia Britannica source and the sentence you are referring to is in the SIXTH paragraph of that article, which discusses the modern development of the holiday. It is not appropriate for the lede of this article either but should be discussed in the "History" section, as it is in Encyclopædia Britannica. As I stated above, I don't object to the addition of your statement. However, I think it would be better if added elsewhere in the article. If you still insist on adding it to the lede, perhaps we could consult WP:THIRD. What do you think? By the way, Happy Thanksgiving. I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * and EB does not have "God" until the 3rd paragraph. Maybe we should wait until the history section for that too? Please just observe NPOV (which is not an EB policy), and there will be no need to continue this conflict--JimWae (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the World Book Encycopedia, which is probably more reliable in this case as it concerns a North American holiday does mention Him in the first sentence. As I've stated, I don't mind the addition of your sentence in the "History" section, also where it is in Encyclopædia Britannica. It doesn't make sense to include your sentence in the lede, especially since "saying grace" is very much a part of modern Thanksgiving Day celebrations. Moreover, all of the presidential proclamations regarding the holiday reference God. Once again, if you feel strongly about adding your sentence in the lede, I think you should consult WP:THIRD or start a RfC here. I will accept the decision made through these consultations, regardless of the outcome. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you said the World Book was PERHAPS more reflective of the American viewpoint than EB, I would have less to object to, but saying it is more reliable is absurd. ALSO1> EB does not structure their articles to have a lede. ALSO2> Ford did NOT refer to God one year. ALSO3> This article is not just about American Thanksgiving. ALSO3> No WP article is written FOR an American audience.
 * You have 3 full reverts, I have 2 partial reverts. Rather than engage in an edit war, I would ask that some other editor re-insert the following as the 3rd sentence of the lede, in order to restore WP:NPOV.


 * The holiday has moved away from its religious roots to allow people of every background to participate in a common tradition.


 * (Omit the dash to make it ref name=) --JimWae (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what I am saying is that Thanksgiving is celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada and that The World Book Encylcopedia is an American encyclopedia. Also, in my reverts, the same content was not reverted; different additions you made were reverted. Also, you are wrong about Gerald Ford's Thanksgiving Proclamation; he states: "Let each of us resolve this Thanksgiving Day to make the coming year one in which our every deed will reflect our constant gratitude to God." I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I am in Canada.
 * 2) It is what you revert TO that counts as a full revert.
 * 3) Gerald Ford's 1975 declaration made no clear reference to any divinity. --JimWae (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that one presidential proclamation should set the tone for the article, despite the fact that all the rest make reference to God (even he makes reference to Him in his other proclamation)? Also, I've only fully reverted you once. Once again, you're more than welcome to consult WP:THIRD or start an RfC if you feel strongly about the addition sentence to the lede. I don't mind it being added in the "History" section of the article, where it is in Encyclopædia Britannica. However, it does not belong in the lede. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You also did full reverts on other people. Check WP:3RR --JimWae (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because they are not established editors here and removed referenced content from the article. Since today was Thanksgiving, I was watching the article to ensure this would not happen. Why are you so hesitant to try WP:THIRD or start an RfC? If you believe your sentence helps ensure WP:NPOV (which in my opinion, it actually does the opposite), then they would agree with you. Right? Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that going WP:THIRD or start an RfC with promise to accept the decision made through these consultations, regardless of the outcome, is a fair proposition, and personally perceive it as the most convenient wikipedian way to solve the disputes at WP, if Consensus is hard to reach. Thanks in advance for collaborative approach. --212.238.46.123 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anupam made his first edit of this article yesterday; he then does a major overhaul of the lede, gets reverted, and -- instead of applying WP:BRD -- justifies his 4 full reverts in that short time (see WP:3RR) because some were done by one of the "not established editors" of the page. He objected (and quickly reverted) when other editors removed his cited material, but thinks he is now in charge of the terms for inclusion of cited material which balances the POV of the lede. I cannot believe his comments are sincere when he wishes a Happy Thanksgiving & says "hope this helps" to people whose cited material he has repeatedly removed. Sure, we can go to WP:THIRD or an RFC and take 3 weeks to debate the inclusion of one sourced sentence - or other editors of this article can speak up & we can fix this in 2 days. The lede needs to be balanced and needs to summarize the content of the body. The first step is to see if there is any consensus among the editors of this page. --JimWae (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Anupam, the claim is WP:UNDUE in the lead paragraph. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Anupam, and agree with JimWae and others on this. It may well be that there is a more balanced and accurate way to wordsmith the recently deleted insertion -- "However, the holiday has moved away from its religious roots to allow people of every background to participate in a common tradition." But to recognize the fact that -- whatever the origins of Thanksgiving -- (1) the societies where Thanksgiving is a major holiday are far more pluralistic than they were in the early 17th century, and that Thanksgiving now is characterized by both religious and non-religious attitudes and practices is not, per NYyankees51, to give "undue weight" to the secular.


 * Anupam's assertion that the U.S.-published "World Book Encyclopedia...is probably more reliable in this case as it concerns a North American holiday" amounts to prooftexting. If anything, I would argue that the decidedly non-neutral World Book quotation that Anupam cites -- "Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer. It is celebrated in the United States and Canada." -- reveals World Book's biases and discredits it as a source on this issue.


 * I note, too, that Anupam's own use of the uppercase honorific "Him" for "God" may say something about his own biases.


 * I suggest the following alternative to the recently deleted third sentence, to restore WP:NPOV: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.103.153 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Preceding comment is fromJohnlumea (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also notice Anupam's change to include "God" within the first paragraph, was after the furor about the Obama speech: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-leaves-god-out-of-thanksgiving-address.html . Stands to reason that it's in certain peoples interests to perpetuate that this is primarily a religious holiday, after the media events on the 24th. From what I can see JimWae is simply reverting those highly questionable changes by Anupam. Also, one only needs to view the user page of NYyankees51 to see why he is in agreement.24.24.141.1 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam WP:UNDUE clearly applies to your edits to try to add God and prayer into the lede of the article. This is because for the most part, in the majority case, Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday (it is secular) so it gives undue weight to put God/prayer in the lede. To avoid WP:UNDUE anything to do with God and prayer should be put into a history section well away from the lede. Glider87 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am okay with User:Johnlumea's edits as they accurately represent the holiday. User:24.103.153, did you read the article you referenced? It states: "His remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." In other words, the reason why his proclamation made the news is because it did not address the traditional meaning of Thanksgiving, which must be included in the lede. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The holiday is mostly secular not religious, it in wider is scope than just the U.S.A, so to add religious references in the lede misrepresents the scope and extent of the holiday. That is a violation of WP:UNDUE. To insist on continuing to violate WP:UNDUE based on personal beliefs is therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. Both are very good reasons why religion should be kept out of the lede. Glider87 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is ridiculous to formulate a lede without explaining its significance of the holiday. Your edit amounts to removing "Christ" from "Christmas." User:Johnlumea's edit was acceptable because it explains the holiday's development from its historical purpose (and oftentimes, contemporary purpose). Moreover, the statement is buttressed from a reliable source (The World Book Encyclopedia). Removing the statement based on your personal views is not acceptable. If you disagree, I suggest consulting WP:THIRD or starting an RfC. Thanks, AnupamTalk 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, how do you explain your edit to *add* God to the first paragraph, shortly after this story broke: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-leaves-god-out-of-thanksgiving-address.html . Merely a coincidence? It seems odd that the argument is coming from the point of view of JimWae making the contentious edit, when all he did was restore the article to it's original form. It's almost like your wording is dancing around the fact that you only added the reference on the 24th, and kind of making it sound like it was 'just always there'. It's pretty clear 'God' was added to the article by someone who does not have a Neutral Point of View; and in direct relation to a current event, with motivations to make revisions based on current politics. 24.24.141.1 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clear that God and prayer was added after the Fox News attack on the President. The Fox News coverage is not representative of the real world situation. As such it is a violation of WP:NPOV to add God and prayer back into the lede. Glider87 (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I did not read the Fox News article, although the Fox News article does state that "His remarks were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." My statement is supported by a reference from the World Book Encyclopedia, which states "Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer. It is celebrated in the United States and Canada." I would request that you kindly reinstate the verifiable content back into the article. It is inappropriate to remove the origins of the holiday from the article because you simply do not like them. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox News is not a reliable source. Also in this situation the majority real world opinion takes priority, which is that Thanksgiving is secular. It is still a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to include the references to God and prayer in the lede. Glider87 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox news is reliable. Your statement to the contrary speaks volumes. Anupam's position is well founded. JimWae's edit in the lede is WP:UNDUE. – Lionel (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox News is definitely not a reliable source, it is biased and not neutral at all. JimWae's edit is also not against WP:UNDUE since it removes Anupam's undue biased comments. Glider87 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Glider87's "cut" of my previous edit of the opening passage -- from


 * Thanksgiving Day is an annual holiday celebrating the harvest and other blessings of the past year. Historically, thanks have been directed towards God, accompanied with feasting and prayer. Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday.


 * to


 * Thanksgiving Day is an annual holiday.


 * results in a lede that is too minimal and spare to be useful as a lede. A lede should foreshadow the substance of the article. As it is, Glider87's lede amounts to: "Thanksgiving is a holiday that exists and is observed on certain dates." This is inadequate.


 * For Anupam, my previous "edit was acceptable because it explains the holiday's development from its historical purpose (and oftentimes, contemporary purpose)." But my intention in offering the edit was to be "agnostic" on the issue of "purpose," and rather to focus on those practices which have -- as a matter of history -- been the case. (This is why I revised the earlier framing of the second sentence, from "Thanks are traditionally directed towards God, etc." to "Historically, thanks have been directed towards God, etc." "Traditionally," coupled with the present-tense framing, had the effect of making a God-orientation normative, whereas "Historically," coupled with a past-tense framing, put a God-orientation in the more appropriate -- and neutral -- context of practices.)


 * By this same token, it is not -- contra Glider87 -- a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, simply to acknowledge the existence of "religious...attitudes, approaches and practices" as part of the historical mix. It is as "biased" to strip Thanksgiving of the fact of "religious" impulses as it is to overplay "religious" impulses to the exclusion of other impulses. Thanksgiving lies in the arena of both/and -- not either/or.


 * To restore WP:NPOV and to protect the lede from WP:UNDUE, I am restoring the previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlumea (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with Johnlumea's edits. It is not neutral to add religious claims in the lede so I undid the edit. I agree that is it a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE to make religious claims in the lede. As was pointed out by Jim "not all sources say it is only to God" so for this secular holiday the lede should not contain such religious claims. I've made the lede look more like this version before the God claims were made. Fnagaton 02:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is incumbent upon Fnagaton to explain what he or she means by "religious claims," before using "religious claims" as a justification for edits on the basis of a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE.


 * No "religious claims" are intended or implied by the recognition that -- as historical fact -- "thanks have been directed towards God, accompanied with feasting and prayer," and "a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices" have been used to signify Thanksgiving. Nor is refusing to acknowledge these historical facts an example of a laudable absence of bias.


 * I invite Fnagaton to examine my previous criticisms of the rationales offered by Anupam, Glider87 and NYyankees51.


 * To restore WP:NPOV and to protect the lede from WP:UNDUE, I am restoring the previous edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlumea (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did examine your previous criticisms and upon reading them I concluded that your reasons given do not follow Wikipedia policy. The pronblem is your edits do not restore WP:NPOV or protect the lede from WP:UNDUE since they add an unacceptable religious bias to the lede. Fnagaton 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically I see no reason why the lede cannot be as the shorter version I linked before. There is no good neutral reason to try to insert references to God or prayer in the lede when they are tackled in specifics in the article. The lede is not meant to include all the viewpoints in the rest of the article especially since Thanksgiving relevant to all forms of Thanksgiving listed in the article is not historically thanks directed to God with prayer. Fnagaton 05:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect User:Fnagton, I would consider reading the Thanksgiving proclamations given by American presidents, especially the first one given by George Washington, which states:
 * Also, The World Book Encyclopedia defines Thanksgiving as follows:
 * In light of these facts, it is important to mention God in the lede. User:Johnlumea added that adverb "Historically" before the insertion, which I can accept. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Johnlumea, I noticed that you restored your revision of the article. I have left your additions, but also added wikilinks, along with references to qualify the first two sentences. I just thought I would give you the heads up. I hope you've had a nice weekend. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately both of your edits are still pushing a non-neutral point of view by mentioning God and prayer. So I've reverted the changes since it is obvious they do not have consensus. Proclimations by Presidents and the world book do not refute the fact that Thanksgiving is largely secular. Since it is largely secular the lede is not the place to push non-neutral points of view. Fnagaton 06:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found a reference that says Thanksgiving is secular. Fnagaton 07:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fnagaton -- It is not "add[ing]...religious bias" or "pushing a non-neutral point of view," to recognize that the history of Thanksgiving includes both "religious" and "non-religious" responses.


 * Please read the edit:


 * Historically, thanks have been directed towards God, accompanied with feasting and prayer. Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday.


 * "Historically" means, simply, that, as a matter of historical record, people -- not all people, just people -- have used the occasion of Thanksgiving to direct their thanks to God. But it is the next sentence that puts matters in context: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday."


 * Do you really wish to deny this history?


 * Previous edit restored.Johnlumea (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede in Wikipedia is used to quickly describe the current situation, not what happened historically. As this referenc says "Thanksgiving is unquestionably secular". As such it is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to include God and prayer in the lede. There is none of this "destroying history" you're talking about because the history is noted later in the article. The lede is not the place for it because it pushes a point of view. Fnagaton 07:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a compromise you can add some of the history in the lede if you make it absolutely clear the Thanksgiving is primarily secular. I suggest you discuss the wording here first before you make any further reverts since reverting now would put you beyond three reverts. Fnagaton 08:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the article from a few days ago did not mention God or prayers in the lede, and since the addition of God and prayers in the lede is so contentious I suggest everyone (Anupam, John etc) stop trying to add those kinds of changes to the article and instead try to get consensus on the talk page first. I suggest this because it is nearly always better to start with the article as it was in a stable state and then try to argue for changes with consensus. Fnagaton 08:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A good plan! Try to form consensus here first because obviously there isn't consensus for mentioning religion in the lede. Glider87 (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Fnagaton, I noticed that you added the word "secular" to the lede of the article. In your response to User:Johnlumea you stated that "As a compromise you can add some of the history in the lede if you make it absolutely clear the Thanksgiving is primarily secular." I am willing to accept your addition if your compromise suggestion holds true. If not, then the word "secular" must be removed. I will suggest the following lede:
 * This version of the introduction satisfies WP:NPOV, which states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." User:Fnagaton, although I preferred User:Johnlumea's compromise, I think that my lede suggestion will satisfy you as well and am willing to accept it. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because the opening sentence reads like it is claiming that the current situation is that Thanksgiving is to give thanks for the harvest, that isn't the current situation at all. Obviously it is mostly secular now so the lede should reflect that. If it was this version below it would more closely follow WP:UNDUE:

Fnagaton 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer "is an annual holiday and although now primarily a secular holiday" instead of "secular observance".Glider87 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Fnagaton, on a second note, I am beginning to see value in User:Johnlumea's version of the article. This is because, in American society, there is still a mix of religious and non-religious traditions for the holiday. I would request that you read a recent article on the holiday from ABC News (click here) and reevaluate your position. We can then discuss the lede further. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is not only about American Thanksgiving so metioning the religious aspect in the lede is not neutral. Even if this was only about American Thanksgiving the fact remains that it is mostly secular so mentioning the religious aspect (with any hint that it is anything but a minority point of view) in the lede is not neutral.Fnagaton 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, in the spirit of compromise, I will accept most of your changes and make a couple minor tweaks tomorrow, when I will propose a draft here. You will see it soon! I hope you have a good day. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fnagaton --

It may interest you to know that I am a thoroughgoing defender of the separation of church and state. On the issue of the freedom of -- and freedom from -- religion, there rarely has been a position taken by the ACLU, PFAW or FFRF with which I don't agree. So if your intention is to try to marginalize me as what you define as some sort of religious partisan, you are mistaken. Indeed, my first contributions to this discussion were (1) an insertion of User:JimWae's suggested sentence, "The holiday has moved away from its religious roots to allow people of every background to participate in a common tradition," coupled with (2) a more neutral re-framing of the opening phrase of User:Anupam's second sentence, from "Traditionally, thanks are directed" to "Historically, thanks have been directed."

The difference between us may be that my commitment to religious freedom doesn't prevent me from acknowledging -- as an anthropological reality -- the fact of individual and communal "religious" sentiment as one part of the totality of the contemporary Thanksgiving experience.

My question for you is: What do you mean by "secular"? To be sure, Thanksgiving is "secular" in the very limited sense that it is not part of the liturgical calendar. Beyond that, though, the secular / sacred distinction is not particularly useful here.

Indeed, your own "sources" for the "secularity" of Thanksgiving are pretty weak. You list five:


 * 1) A Christian book on children's sermons that identifies Thanksgiving as a "secular (pagan)" holiday -- and does so as a pretext to citing Thanksgiving as "an opportunity to recover the distinctive aspects of a Judeo-Christian understanding of stewardship."


 * 2) A book on "managing Hispanic and Latino employees" that -- again -- uses the "secularity" of Thanksgiving as a negative example: For Mexican Hispanics, December 12 -- the Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe -- is more significant than Thanksgiving. But, for the purposes of the point being made -- which is about the acculturation of native Hispanic and Latino workers in the U.S. workplace -- "secular" is at least as much about being "American" as it is about being non-religious.


 * 3) Three 30-plus-year-old judicial opinions of an individual Supreme Court justice(s).


 * 4) An anti-religion screed by a self-published, self-promoting charlatan who markets himself as "Dr. Jawara D. King" or "Jawara D. King, D.D.," but who in fact got his "Dr. of Divinity" and his "Dr. of Metaphysics" certificates, by doing a double-swipe of his Visa card -- 33 bucks apiece -- on the Universal Life Church Web site. (He got his "Master of Wicca" and "Jedi Knight" certificates the same way.)


 * 5) One seemingly serious book that does twice identify Thanksgiving as a "secular" holiday, but whose overarching and unmistakable message -- if one reads the full three-page section -- is the same as my previous edit of the lede: Thanksgiving includes a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices. Two important points about this acknowledgment: (a) It occurs in an extremely recent (2007) book, and (b) it occurs in a chapter on "Rituals."

If these are the "sources" on which the case for a "secular" Thanksgiving is meant to rest, well...it's pretty thin soup.

The truth is: When friends and family go around the Thanksgiving table, taking turns expressing what they are thankful for, they are practicing a ritual -- whether or not anybody mentions or invokes "religion" or "faith" or "God." The ubiquity of this ritual is one facet of Thanksgiving that breaks down the hard and fast distinction between "sacred" and "secular," and significantly reduces the traction of any argument that Thanksgiving is "primarily secular" or "primarily religious."

At the very least, one has to put the words "secular" and "sacred" in quotation marks.

Anybody can do a Google search on "Thanksgiving" and "secular," or on "Thanksgiving" and "God," and come up with examples in which either word pairing falls in the same isolated sentence. In the current debate over the lede of this article, both "sides" have been guilty of this practice, which -- as I've said -- amounts to prooftexting to push a particular view.

Of the sources that I've seen used to defend this or that approach to the lede, the full section, pp. 116-120, of the fifth source, above -- currently linked as reference number 5 in the article -- is one of the few that presents a balanced view. (Note: Neither of the current first five references is a proper citation.)

I observe that, in none of articles on the other major federal holidays that User:Fnagaton might consider "secular" -- Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day -- have editors found it necessary to spell out, in the lede, that the holiday is "secular."

I also note -- re the question of what should or should not be included in a lede -- that the ledes of some of these articles include even more detailed versions of the kind of thumbnail historical overview that I and others have proposed for the lede here.

I suggest the following revision of my previous edit of the lede:

Thanksgiving Day, observed primarily in the United States and Canada, is a harvesttime holiday for remembering and celebrating what has been good in the past year. From the outset of the modern Thanksgiving Day tradition --- beginning with the late-19th-century establishment of Thanksgiving as an annual observance with a fixed date --- societies that celebrate Thanksgiving assumed, and have continued to develop, a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday, including feasting, reunions, parades and prayers. But the unifying value is gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile.

In both the United States and in Canada, Thanksgiving is a legal holiday; it is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November in the U.S. and on the second Monday of October in Canada. (Thanksgiving in Canada falls on the same day as Columbus Day in the United States.) Because of the longstanding traditions of the holiday, the celebration often extends to the weekend that falls closest to the day it is celebrated.

Johnlumea (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Johnlumea, I am willing to support your lede if you are open to suggestions. For example, are you willing to revise "public and private prayers to God" to "public, family, and private prayers to God"? I suggest this because thanksgiving grace with one's family is an integral part of many Thanksgiving celebrations. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, User:Anupam -- I added your suggestion, above. Johnlumea (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly reject this proposed text since it reads like it still advocates the religious interpretation which is biased since the holiday is mostly secular. Glider87 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnlumea to try to claim the references I supplied are thin soup without showing they are thin soup is itself a weak argument. The references I provided were shown to demonstrate that religious texts describe the holiday as secular. Also the reference from the "30-plus-year-old judicial opinions of an individual Supreme Court justice(s)." is all the more important because it is ~30 years old. The logic is that since the court decided ~30 years ago that the holiday is secular then the case for the secular aspect for the holiday in a modern less religious United States is all the more stronger. Also since you've not provided any legal ruling to refute that older reference then the case for a secular holiday now is all the more stronger. You pointed out that "in none of articles on the other major federal holidays that User:Fnagaton might consider "secular"" and I would counter that by saying that none of those other secular holidays have the problem of someone trying to claim they are religious in the lede. I would point out that insisting on the religious God aspect to this a mostly secular holiday is precisely the reason why the secular aspect needs to be reinforced in the lede to such a strong extent. To not do that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.Fnagaton 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Fnagaton --


 * I'm sorry, but, when you use as a "reference" a self-publishing self-help writer who --- on the front covers of his books --- flatters himself with the honorific "D.D." after his name, but who actually bought his "Dr. of Divinity" certificate (along with his "Dr. of Metaphysics," his "Jedi Knight" and his "Master of Wicca" certificates) off of a Web site for 30 bucks, it does tend to undermine the credibility of your argument.


 * Your claim that "the [Supreme C]ourt decided ~30 years ago that the holiday is secular" is incorrect --- your citation is from Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion re the Court's 1984 decision in Lynch v. Donnelly. (Brennan was joined in his dissent by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens.)


 * But it's worth looking at your quote in its fuller context:


 * [O]ur cases recognize that, while a particular governmental practice may have derived from religious motivations and retain certain religious connotations, it is nonetheless permissible for the government to pursue the practice when it is continued today solely for secular reasons. As this Court noted with reference to Sunday Closing Laws in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the mere fact that a governmental practice coincides to some extent with certain religious beliefs does not render it unconstitutional. Thanksgiving Day, in my view, fits easily within this principle, [p716] for, despite its religious antecedents, [n23] the current practice of celebrating Thanksgiving is unquestionably secular and patriotic. We all may gather with our families on that day to give thanks both for personal and national good fortune, but we are free, given the secular character of the holiday, to address that gratitude either to a divine beneficence or to such mundane sources as good luck or the country's abundant natural wealth.


 * For these dissenting Justices, it is precisely the secularity of the holiday that provides for the diversity of attitudes, approaches and practices --- "divine...or...mundane" -- that exist. Moreover --- and more important for the present discussion --- the Justices are able to explicitly acknowledge, and even name, these differences, without supposing that their basic claim --- that "the current practice of celebrating Thanksgiving is unquestionably secular and patriotic" --- is threatened in any way.


 * My own proposed lede refrains from making any ontological claims or value judgments about what Thanksgiving singularly or "mostly" or "primarily" "is" --- "secular," "religious" or otherwise. It simply recognizes that, "From the outset of the modern Thanksgiving Day tradition...societies that celebrate Thanksgiving assumed, and have continued to develop, a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday: from the 'secular'...to the 'sacred.'"


 * If judicial giants like Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens were not threatened by such a generic statement of the obvious facts on the ground, then nobody else should be either.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your claim that I wrote "the Supreme Court decided ~30 years ago that the holiday is secular" is a straw man since it takes out of context what I actually wrote and attacks a different point to that presented. Since your post is a straw man logical fallacy and does not refute the actual main point of my argument there isn't anything else to say on that point, the argument stands. Now onto the proposed lede, as has been posted here by others your proposed lede violates WP:UNDUE because by omission it gives undue weight to certain viewpoints. Allowing viewpoints to be given undue weight, either actively or by omission, is not neutral. It seems you have a deep misunderstanding about what neutrality really means here on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean articles have to include all things without weight, it means articles have to include views with proportionately and that means giving due weight. Fnagaton 04:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Autumn" depends on hemisphere. "Harvest" is more descriptive of what is being celebrated -- and not dependent on hemisphere. Please remember that thanks and gratitude are typically given to many people - including soldiers - as can be seen from the presidential proclamations and , , and  Though there is a source for "blessings", it implies religiosity - which is not how it is universally celebrated. --JimWae (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JimWae -- although, in today's decidedly less agrarian society, I'm guessing that there are few besides farmers (and those in the food sector whose business success depends on farmers) who are using Thanksgiving to celebrate a literal "harvest." I revised "autumn," above, to "harvesttime." I also revised "blessings" to the less poetic but more accurate and neutral "what has been good." Johnlumea (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User JimWae, both Encyclopædia Britannica and The World Book Encyclopedia use this terminology. Encyclopædia Britannica states:


 * Similarly, the World Book Encyclopedia states:
 * We need to keep WP:OR in mind here; what goes in the introduction should reflect what has already been published by reliable sources on the matter. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided several sources, and what I have said does not contradict existing sources. Your repeated appeal to NO-OR sounds like a broken record. NO-OR does not mean we must copy what others have written. Wikipedia is different from other encyclopediae in at least 2 ways 1>NPOV is a policy 2>Every article is supposed to start with a lede. The lede is supposed to start with a definition. Dictionaries and encyclopedia do not typically give "the defintion" of a word - they give several definitions, or a common definition, or the several usages. An ideal defintion gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for the usage of the word. It does not restrict the usage of a word to a narrower scope than the way the word is used -nor does it expand the scope beyond the usage of the word. A defintion of "Thanksgiving Day" should neither restrict nor expand the usage of the term. Most encyclopediae do not aim for a complete defintion - they are just pointing to what the article is about without necessarily defing it. Thanksgiving is celebrated by many who do not "give thanks to God/count their blessings/pray" - all of which have been used redundantly recently. --JimWae (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NO-OR must also be considered with the other policies. The lede is not meant to contain all view points on a particular subject because that is what the article is for. The lede is meant to contain that which mostly describes the subject in a concise way. Thanksgiving is not universally celebrated with God/prayer/harvest related stuff. It isn't even the majority case. So to want to include the harvest, God, prayer, family in the lede misrepresents what Thanksgiving actually is for most people and also misrepresents what the lede is for. It is that misrepresentation that makes the proposed changes a violation of policy. Glider87 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the version presented by User:Johnlumea, whose paragraph so far is a good compromise and presents the widest scope possible. User:Fnagaton, we are waiting for your thoughts! :) User:Glider87, stating that Thanksgiving is a purely secular holiday is not appropriate and violates WP:NPOV because it neglects the other perspective, which is buttressed by several references. I think that User:Johnlumea's version will work the best because it gives weight to both secular and religious perspectives, with the sentence: "societies that celebrate Thanksgiving assumed, and have continued to develop, a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday: from the "secular" (feasting, reunions and parades) to the "sacred" (public, family and private prayers to God)." You cannot deny that Thanksgiving grace and presidential proclamations invoking God are widespread practices associated with the observance. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Glider87 --


 * It may well be that "God/prayer/harvest related stuff...isn't even the majority case." But -- based on actual attitudes, approaches and practices -- do you know what the ratio of "secular" to "sacred" is? Certainly, it's not 90/10 or 80/20. Is it 60/40? 55/45? Perhaps you -- and others here, like User:Fnagaton and User:NYyankees51 -- are in some denial about how many churches there are, and how pervasive civil religion remains, in the United States, whose population is 9 times that of Canada. The truth is, Thanksgiving is -- and always has been -- a hybrid holiday. Neither "sacred" nor "secular" has a universal -- or even overwhelming majority -- claim to Thanksgiving. Given this, the strongly "secular" reading that you and others here want to give to Thanksgiving is -- by your own logic -- just as inadmissable as the strongly "sacred" reading that you accuse others of us of giving the holiday, for daring to notice that "religious" impulses are part of the mix at all. The only way for the lede to "contain that which mostly describes the subject in a concise way" -- your definition -- is for the lede to recognize the hybridity that has characterized Thanksgiving from the beginning. Johnlumea (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not claim I am "in some denial about how many churches there are" it is entirely irrelevant to try to make personal attacks and it just exposes how bad and weak your argument really is. I pray to God, I go to Church, but my faith has nothing to do with the fact that trying to claim a secular holiday as religious is not neutral and violates Wikipedia policy. I also don't want to give Thanksgiving a "secular reading" as you put it, which is another attempt to personally attack me by the way. It isn't me making Thanksgiving appear secular, what is doing that are the facts and everyone living in the real world who can recognise the world for what it is. The same facts that show your point of view to be in the minority. You are incorrect when you say the only way for the lede to be concise is to recognize the hybridity because as shown by your proposals your version of recognizing hybridity is not neutral and violates Wikipedia policy. Your proposals are not neutral because they do not reflect the real world as most people see it. The more concise version is this one. Wikipedia is not somewhere to try to force our own personal beliefs onto the world by making claims that are obviously not supported by the facts. Trying to force our personal beliefs into obviously secular areas only goes to further weaken our faith in the eyes of others who read these articles. It is counter productive.Glider87 (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Glider87 --


 * Please relax --- nobody is attacking you.


 * Please also understand that my proposed lede makes neither of the following two claims:


 * Thanksgiving is a religious holiday.
 * Thanksgiving is a secular holiday.


 * Rather, my proposed lede simply acknowledges the existence of "a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday" --- some of which can be broadly characterized as "secular," some of which can be broadly characterized as "sacred."


 * It is not my "personal belief" that this latter category exists to a significant (if not necessarily majority) degree. It is a fact.


 * I should clarify what may be a point of confusion for which I bear some responsibility. When I speak of "hybridity," I am not suggesting a neat division between those with an an "all-secular" approach to Thanksgiving and those with an "all-religious" approach. To the contrary: I am including hybridity at the level of the individual. If an individual whose physically observable actions during the Thanksgiving holiday seem to consist primarily of "secular" activities like participating in a feast; attending a reunion; and/or watching the parades and football games --- if such a person also participates in a family or public prayer(s); attends a religiously themed Thanksgiving service (or other public event); watches or listens to a religiously themed Thanksgiving program on television or radio; has religiously themed Thanksgiving-oriented conversations with friends and family; or breathes quiet prayers of thanksgiving that no one ever sees --- this person, too, is adding to the "religious index" of a given society's signification of Thanksgiving. An individual need not be bringing to his or her observance of Thanksgiving exclusively "religious" attitudes, approaches and practices," in order to be said to be viewing Thanksgiving through a religious lens.


 * Perhaps this makes it easier to see what I've been trying to say.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When you write things like "Glider87 are in some denial about how many churches there are, and how pervasive civil religion remains" that is a personal attack because you accusing someone of being denial. Your proposed lede "simply acknowledges the existence of a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday" without giving any hint about the weight of those varying attitudes, approaches and practices. The "attitudes, approaches and practices" are not equal so to not mention their relative weights gives undue weight to some viewpoints. Your proposed lede makes it look like they are equal "attitudes, approaches and practices" when they are not. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. The policy says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Failing to mention the minority role of religion when the holiday is secular does not fairly represent viewpoints and is not in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. WP:LEAD also says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" which is the same as WP:UNDUE. Glider87 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My sentence reads: "Perhaps you...are in some denial...." Doesn't look terribly vicious to me.


 * The fact is: You nor I nor anybody else is in a position to say, with any precision, what the relative "weight[s] of those varying attitudes, approaches and practices" are. All we can do is recognize the existence of the mix.


 * Why are you so threatened by this, anyway?


 * Serious question.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are not in a position to say does not mean you can assume everyone else is in the same position. Fnagaton has already given a very persuasive argument that shows Thanksgiving is mostly secular. Even if you do not agree with that, the point about giving undue weight still stands. You admit you are not "in a position to say" what the ratios are, so to mention things in the lede without "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" is a violation of policy. Asking questions like "Why are you so threatened by this, anyway?" is also a personal attack. As I said above you are proposing an article change that violates policy, nothing about "threatened".Glider87 (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you and I live in very different logic-worlds. Johnlumea (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you were talking to Glider87 but I have to interject here regarding ratios of secular/religious. I would like to point out that one of the source I found says "Thanksgiving is unquestionably secular". Then there is this official source which does not mention God, prayer or religion at all. I'm sorry, but at this stage I would not accept a religiously biased source claiming Thanksgiving is religious to be as reliable a source as those two official sources. So unless you can provide sources that are at least equally official and reliable then I have to conclude that Thanksgiving now is >95% secular. As such trying to use religion in the lede is giving undue weight to that minority point of view. It does mention harvest but not to say the holiday is to celebrate the harvest but instead to say the holiday is at the end of the harvest season.Fnagaton 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Fnagaton ---


 * Given the hybridity and multivalence of attitudes, approaches and practices that exist, with respect to Thanksgiving --- and that exist at the societal, the communal and the individual levels --- I'm not at all confident that any source could be "official" in the way that you seem to mean -- i.e., having the universally recognized authority to pronounce Thanksgiving definitively "secular" or definitively "religious," thus putting to rest arguments such as those we've been having here.


 * Of the two "official" sources you mention here, I address the first -- Justice Brennan's dissenting 1984 judicial opinion -- at some length, above.


 * The second source you mention is not even arguably "official" --- it's a site that seems to be, as much as anything else, a front for advertisements about travel deals and other retail offers. But, as to your assertion that the site "does not mention God, prayer or religion at all," well, the site does identify Thanksgiving as a "holiday to express thanks for one's...spiritual possessions," and calls it "a time of special communion." So the religious metaphors definitely are there.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So to confirm, despite being asked you have not provided any sources of sufficient quality to support your point of view. Therefore the changes you propose are unsupported and cannot be added to be article. Fnagaton 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would say that it is you and User:Glider87 who have not provided adequate support for your view. But you both seem more intent on staking out your own religiously held position until everybody else moves off your turf, rather than engaging other perspectives in a genuine consensual process. This has degenerated into an endurance game that I've grown weary of playing. I just would remind you and Glider87 that you don't own this entry; everybody does --- including those who understand that the contemporary aggregated experience of Thanksgiving is far more complex and nuanced than you're making it out to be. Johnlumea (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are proposing making a change so the onus is on you to provide good enough evidence and argument for that change. Making personal attacks is not providing a good argument.Glider87 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose it depends on what one means by "attacks." For the most part, I see the way this "discussion" has unfolded as another signpost on the road to increasing polarization in our public discourse -- an inability or unwillingness to recognize or acknowledge complexity and nuance that challenges the easy either/or(thodoxy) of the status quo; a dedication to the letter of the (Wikipedia) law, to the exclusion of the law's spirit; repeated defensive demands for "proof," rather than genuine engagement; a discursive culture oriented more toward "winning" than to collaborative discovery of the truth. I understand that these postures often have been taken in the name of defending Wikipedia values. But I'm not sure that it's Wikipedia's values that always have come out on top.


 * As to the lede: It's unproductive --- and not at all neutral, in my view -- to say flatly that Thanksgiving is "a secular holiday" or "a primarily secular holiday" or "a mostly secular holiday." I happen to think that Justice Brennan's framing of the secularity of Thanksgiving still has a lot of merit. But the word itself --- the word "secular" --- is much more loaded today than it was when Brennan used it in 1983. It's become a button-pushing litmus term, and its use here would tend to make this article another battlefield in the culture wars --- and would risk suggesting that those who do not frame Thanksgiving as "secular" have less access to the holiday.


 * Too: Over the course of the last few years, there have been a number of large national surveys, by reputable groups like Pew, showing a marked uptick in the percentage of the U.S. population that identifies as "spiritual but not religious." These surveys show that about 20 percent of the population now identifies as "unaffiliated" --- what researchers call "nones." But "drilling down" on the "unafilliated" data shows that the vast majority of those in this group do not identify as atheists or agnostics but, rather, as "spiritual but not religious." They have rejected (or feel alienated by) organized or institutional forms of religion --- but they still consider themselves to be "spiritual."


 * Several days ago, William Grassie of the Metanexus Institute published a great piece, "Celebrate a Spritual, Not Religious Thanksgiving," that highlights some implications of this dynamic for our current discussion. The bigger picture, though, is that the old sacred/secular dualism is breaking down. This puts added pressure on those who wish to claim that Thanksgiving is "primarily secular" to explain what they mean. "Secular," by what measure? It's not enough, to produce a list of Google-sourced prooftexts that show "Thanksgiving" and "secular" in the same sentence. All that does is invite those of a different disposition to produce their own list based on a search of "Thanksgiving" and their "religious" word of choice.


 * All of that said, please note that I am continuing to try to make my proposed lede even more neutral: I have deleted references to "God" and "blessings." In the second sentence, I have removed the sacred/secular framing, which some felt created a falsely equivalent weighting of the two. I also have expanded the list of rituals to include feasting, reunions, football, parades and prayers. Please note that only one of the five rituals is explicitly religious. I also have added a new third sentence that I hope can help to move this discussion beyond the sacred/secular divide.


 * Here is the current version of my proposal:


 * Thanksgiving Day, observed primarily in the United States and Canada, is a harvest festival holiday for remembering and celebrating what has been good in the past year. Beginning with the modern establishment of Thanksgiving as an annual observance with a fixed date, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving adopted, and have continued to develop, a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday, including rituals involving feasting, reunions, football, parades and prayers. But the unifying value is gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile.


 * In both the United States and in Canada, Thanksgiving is a legal holiday, celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November in the U.S. and on the second Monday of October in Canada (the same day as Columbus Day in the United States).  Celebrations often extend to the weekend that falls closest to the holiday itself.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My thoughts. After consideration I think the lede is the wrong place to try to put anything about religion or secular aspects or anything beyond which are just the facts simply because the topic is too complex and there is not enough space to do it justice. To try to put one thing in the lede results in another aspect not being given enough space, so it gets extended, then extended again and so on. At which point the lede expands towards trying to be the main article. That won't do. The lede is meant to be short and concise. As such I think it is better to leave the lede as it was in this version and to try to improve the main article text instead. Fnagaton 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If we do NOT deal with the issue in a balanced way in the lede, then somebody will come along before too long and insert an unbalanced opinion on whether it is religious or not (and I am pretty sure we would see "God" re-inserted many times before next T-day, and more edit wars and arguing about whether a previous consensus was ready to be overridden). We seem to be getting some agreement from all sides about how to phrase the religious part. I do think the proposed sentence about the secular part ("Various peoples in various ways..." or "a variety of attitudes, approaches and practice" or whatever, is hopelessly vague & uninformatively wordy.) Anyway, we are getting somewhere and should try to settle this issue. As long as it's called Thanksgiving, the role of "thanks" will be a crucial topic. Right now, the article is unbalanced, because the only "thanks" mentioned at all is to God - and prayer figures prominently in the photo.
 * Obviously, if T-day did not have a secular aspect, it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to make it a legal holiday - that is where the court opinions have come in. Xns should be rejoicing that people are emphasizing the secular aspects to Thanksgiving - and Xmas too. In the USA, Xmas is the only holiday whose date has been chosen by a religious body. (In Canada, Good Friday is a legal holiday - and also Easter Monday for some.) If T-day & Xmas did not have a secular function, it is hard to see how USA gov't could declare them legal holiday.--JimWae (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You said "Right now, the article is unbalanced, because the only "thanks" mentioned at all is to God" but right now the only mention of God is in relation to Canada where it also says "the holiday is mostly celebrated in a secular manner". For the United States there is no mention of God. So I don't thin kit is unbalanced.Glider87 (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's try this:
 * Thanksgiving Day, observed primarily in the United States and Canada, is a harvest festival holiday for remembering and celebrating what has been good in the past year. Modern Thanksgiving Day traditions include feasting, reunions, football, parades, and praying. It is a legal holiday celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November in the U.S., and on the second Monday of October in Canada (the same day as Columbus Day in the United States). Celebrations often extend to the weekend that falls closest to the day on which it is celebrated.

JimWae (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine -- thanks. Johnlumea (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we just need to add something about what the word "thanks" is doing there - if we don't, I'm sure drive-by and agenda-driven editors will.--JimWae (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My sentence --- "The unifying value is gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile." --- could be a start. Johnlumea (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think that User:Johnlumea's original suggestion was better than the proposal by User:JimWae above and the former user provided much research to buttress his opinions. In the near future, I will suggest a modified version of his paragraph and will create a formal RfC to gain input from the entire Wikipedia community on this matter, as I feel that the entire community will rule differently on this matter. As of now, the assumptions of bad faith and continual edit warring do not help here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anupam. My "Fine" re JimWae's suggestion is, to some degree, the "Fine" of resignation -- I'm a little weary, and I feel that I've offered about all the useful analysis and background to this conversation that I can. Of the two paragraphs of my own proposed lede, I'm much more invested in the framing and the content of the first paragraph than of the second. As you might expect, I find the framing and the content of my own proposal more complete and satisfying than JimWae's edit. But JimWae is not entirely wrong to have suggested that I might have sacrificed a little clarity at the altar of completeness. I will continue to look for opportunities to pare the word count in a way that doesn't lose any more subtlety than seems necessary. I look forward to your own "cut." Johnlumea (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A change that adds "prayer" (or God) to the lede without giving it due weight and without mentioning "secular" would not be neutral.Glider87 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Glider87 ---


 * For the sake of argument, let's use the word "sacred" as an umbrella for "prayer," "God," "blessings," etc.


 * You write that: "A change that adds 'prayer' (or God) to the lede without giving it due weight and without mentioning 'secular' would not be neutral."


 * I take it that the point of "mentioning 'secular'" would be to oppose "the secular" to --- or, at least, to distinguish it from --- "the sacred." I also take it that there would be an obligation not only to specify, with some precision, what is the relative "weight" of "the sacred" vis-a-vis Thanksgiving --- but also to specify, with the same precision, the relative "weight" of "the secular."


 * The thing is: As I explained above, "sacred/secular" is outliving its usefulness as a totalizing "sifter" of culture. In a world in which the girl who watches football on Thanksgiving also prays her thanks to God --- a world in which the guy who attends a Thanksgiving service at his church also watches a Thanksgiving Day parade whose main attraction is tractor-trailer-driven floats of enormous cartoon characters made of flowers...


 * In such a world --- a world in which both/and trumps either/or --- the dualistic sifter of sacred/secular always was a little dumbed-down and dubious.


 * But, now, in a "spiritual but not religious" world --- a world in which the slash itself --- the slash that, for so long, has separated "sacred" and "secular" --- is breaking up before our very eyes --- in that world, well...


 * My view: In the five "rituals" that I name --- "feasting, reunions, football, parades and prayers" --- only one is obviously "religious." In fact, this word --- "prayers" --- is is the only obviously "religious" word in my proposed lede of nearly 175 words.


 * If "due weight" is a concern, this seems more than fair.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added, immediately below this section, a new section titled "Proposed ledes." The idea is to have the current and all proposed lede texts --- just the texts; no discussion --- in one place, for easy access and comparison. Individuals should update and save revisions to their proposed ledes there --- so that every proposal is visible only in its most recent version -- or they can add new proposals.

I recommend that we continue analysis and discussion, here in this "User:JimWae's Edits" section --- which I've re-titled "Discussion of proposed revisions to the lede."

Johnlumea (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo in present Day
In this sentence, "On his third and final voyage to these regions in 1578 Frobisher held a formal ceremony in Frobisher Bay in Baffin Island in present Day Nunavut to give thanks to God and in a service ministered by the preacher Robert Wolfall they celebrated Communion, the first ever service in these regions."

Day should not be capitalized.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntledky (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Edit war over lede
The recent attempt to change the lede is opposed by 4 editors. There is no semblance of consensus for this change. Please stop claiming consensus. This change falls under WP:BRD. The "B"old change was made to the lede. The change was "R"everted. Now it is time for "D"iscussion. You cannot edit war to insert your change. Failure to observe BRD will result in page protection and/or blocks for disruptive users. – Lionel (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is no consensus then you should not have just reverted to add the version that is causing trouble. You should have left it alone because that is what was most like the article before all this trouble. Fnagaton 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lionel it looks like you think the bold change is to remove "God and prayer" from the lede but you are wrong to imply that. The unpopular "bold" change was actually to add references in the lede to add God and prayer and it was reverted, quite a few times. So if any revert was needed you should have reverted back to before that unpopular edit, not to the edit that adds God and prayer. It is being discussed up above but your edit has continued the edit war by reverting without discussing. As such I've undone your edit because it clearly does not have consensus and I hope you agree to discuss the subject in the section above. Glider87 (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some confusion here by Lionel, the contentious edit was made by Anupam on the 24th to *include* God in the first paragraph. The previous heading on this talk page which discusses JimWae's edit, was a deflection to make people think the (later) JimWae revert was the controversial edit. This Thanksgiving page for many years has had no reference to God within the first paragraph. It's inclusion coincidentally came Thanksgiving Day 2011, when there was a Republican furor over the Obama Speech. Editing a Wikipedia page like this to somehow back up a political point, is very much *not* maintaining a Neutral Point of View. We should be discussing the original addition of God to that paragraph, and whether it should be there. In the meantime the article should be reverted to it's original form: Pre-Obama Speech. 64.111.160.23 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Fnagaton, while the discussion is occurring, could you please revert to the introduction as it stood before this discussion commenced? This is because this version omits any mention of religion and secularity. In the mean time, in the discussion above, we can talk about a version that is acceptable to both parties. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the article has already been changed to undo Lionel's revert.Fnagaton 03:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am asking you to revert to the original version that does not mention religion or secularity as neither of our versions have gained consensus yet. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More confusion here, looks like things have been changed back to the contentious version yet again. NYyankees51 states: "No consensus for this change, that means status quo remains". The 'status quo' as you put it, was to have no reference to God within that first paragraph. The God reference was added on the 24th, and wasn't there at all previous to that date for a very long period. Anupam (who made the original edit to include God), is fine with a potentially revised version being discussed here on the talk page, while the original article is reverted to the one which doesn't mention God. 64.111.160.23 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam, I see. As you wish, I will revert to that version of the lede. Fnagaton 06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)