Talk:Thanksgiving/Archive 4

RfC on Proposed ledes
Which Introduction should be selected for the article? Your participation in this RfC will be very helpful! Thanks in advance! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Option One
 * Thanksgiving Day is a holiday set aside each year for giving thanks for blessings received during the year. From the outset of the modern Thanksgiving Day tradition—the late 19th century establishment of Thanksgiving as an annual observance—societies that celebrate Thanksgiving assumed a variety of attitudes, approaches and practices to mark the holiday, including feasting, reunions, parades and prayers to God.  As a legal holiday, Thanksgiving is celebrated each year on the second Monday of October in Canada and on the fourth Thursday of November in the United States.
 * REFERENCES

Option Two


 * Thanksgiving Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada. Thanksgiving is celebrated each year on the second Monday of October in Canada and on the fourth Thursday of November in the United States. In Canada, Thanksgiving 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.

Option Three


 * Thanksgiving Day, observed primarily in the United States and Canada, is a harvest festival holiday for remembering and celebrating the year's good fortunes. Over time, communities, families and individuals have developed a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday. Modern traditions include feasting, football, parades, prayers and reunions. 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.

Option Four


 * Thanksgiving Day, observed primarily in the United States and Canada, is a harvest festival holiday on which people celebrate all the things for which they are grateful. Modern Thanksgiving traditions include feasting, reunions, football, parades, and prayer. 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 in both countries often extend to the weekend that falls closest to the holiday itself.
 * REFERENCES

Comments & Decisions

 * Option 1 This version best reflects the ledes written in Encyclopædia Britannica and The World Book Encyclopedia which are used to buttress the statements in the first option, thus satisfying WP:NPOV. The first option also summarizes the main concepts in the article, satisfying WP:LEDE. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It adequately represents the important points of the article per WP:LEAD, and it is sourced. – Lionel (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything but Option 1, which is divisive and is inadequate as a definition in that it does not take into account all the ways Thanksgiving is celebrated, restricting it to a religious context. As EB itself says later in its article "The holiday moved away from its religious roots to allow immigrants of every background to participate in a common tradition." EB & World Book do not have an NPOV policy AND they do not structure articles so that they must begin with a completely adequate definition. It is false that Option 1 is the only one with reliable sources -- though it was when the proposer who prefers option 1 first copied it here. --JimWae (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to saying "Traditionally, it has been a time to give thanks to God, friends, family, and soldiers, and to patriotically unite with one's countrymen." - all of which can be sourced one way or another (countryman part might be hardest). But to DEFINE it as "a day for giving thanks for (God's) blessings" does not recognize that it IS celebrated by thankful non-believers.--JimWae (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add that others should be encouraged to propose lede options that are not yet listed here. Johnlumea (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the options because they mention God or prayer and that is not neutral. I choose the current version of the lede instead. Glider87 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentioning prayer violates WP:NPOV? NPOV is about balancing viewpoints and not endorsing them - not about eliminating them!! --JimWae (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, JimWae. Johnlumea (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was explained above why WP:NPOV applies, it doesn't need to be duplicated here.Glider87 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the choices follow the policy about WP:UNDUE. I prefer the version I had edited to. It was the stable version before all of this trouble.Fnagaton 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE begins with "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources..."--JimWae (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The same section of WP:UNDUE ends with "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Nobody has shown that "prayer" is prominent enough to be included in the lede and it actually has been shown that Thanksgiving is mostly secular. Glider87 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that what's been "shown" is a prooftexting exercise, in which editors with one point of view produce and/or support a set of citations in which the word "Thanksgiving" appears in the same sentence as the word "secular," while editors with another point of view produce and/or support a set of citations in which the word "Thanksgiving" appears in the same sentence as the word "prayer(s)" or "blessings" or "God." These citations signify little more than how awesome Google is. What one really would need, in order to offer an answer to the question of relative prominence would be something like a recent major national survey, by a group like Pew or Gallup or New York Times/CBS, on attitudes and practices re Thanksgiving. None of us has been able to produce a source like that. I'm still looking. I note that Options 3 and 4, above, list five "modern traditions": feasting, reunions, football, parades and prayers. So, Glider87 -- a question: Consider all the Thanksgiving meals that take place. Now. Consider, too, the percentage of those meals that begin with a prayer. Do you really believe that "prayer" is not one of the five most common Thanksgiving practices -- and thus that it is not sufficiently prominent to be mentioned in the lede at all? Simply using the example of the Thanksgiving meal prayer, my guess is that prayer may be even more prominent than watching football or parades -- both of which are more gender-segregated traditions. Johnlumea (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I or you believe is not relevant, what is relevant is Wikipedia policy. Which is why I choose the current version of the lede instead.Glider87 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has established the relative prominence of any of the traditions. Saying that Thanksgiving has strong secular elements does not establish that non-secular elements are not also prominent. Reliable sources prominently mention all those traditions - and THAT is what wiki-policy uses as a standard .--JimWae (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fnagaton found sources that did establish the relative prominence. So mentioning anything religious in the lede is violates policy.Glider87 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - seems like the best summation of the article. - Haymaker (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer Option 4; to me, it's neutral and comprehensive. Miniapolis (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I sort of like number 4, but I still think it should say something about, well, giving thanks. Number 1 is a little heavy on that, but I'm sure there's a way to make everybody happy. Perhaps you could make the lead two paragraphs long and cover both the traditional and political sides of the holiday. After all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article; and having a two-paragraph lead isn't unreasonable for an article this size. That said, I never expected Thangsgiving to be controversial enough for a RFC :-) – Adjwilley (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I just read the options again, and I think Option #3 is closest to what I was suggesting. I'd recommend switching the order of the paragraphs though, like this:
 * Thanksgiving Day is a legal holiday in both the United States and in Canada, 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.


 * Thanksgiving is a harvest festival holiday for remembering and celebrating the year's good fortunes. Over time, communities, families and individuals have developed a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday. Modern traditions include 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.
 * Hope this helps. – Adjwilley (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have added the following to #4 as a new 2nd sentence, but have not searched for the best sources yet: "Traditionally, it has been a time to give thanks to God, friends, family, and soldiers, and to patriotically unite with one's countrymen." I find the 2nd sentence of #3 uninformatively wordy because it is so non-specific --JimWae (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the individual sentences in all of these proposed ledes, the second sentence in Option 3 --- "Over time, communities, families and individuals have developed a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday." --- is not meant to be read in isolation but is to be read and understood in the context of its placement within the whole lede. In this particular case, the third sentence --- "Modern traditions include feasting, reunions, football, parades and prayers." --- is an elaboration of the second; it specifies the "variety of attitudes and approaches." And then the fourth sentence --- "But the unifying value is gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile." --- explains what ties it all together. In other words: Each sentence builds on the ones preceding it. This is a fairly common rhetorical strategy.


 * A few comments on the suggested sentence: "Traditionally, it has been a time to give thanks to God, friends, family, and soldiers, and to patriotically unite with one's countrymen."


 * The framing --- "Traditionally, it has been a time to...." --- risks assigning a normative status to what follows this phrase, i.e., "This is how it is --- and these are the things that one is supposed to do --- on Thanksgiving." The detached and more purely observational tone of "Modern traditions include...." --- in the current Options 3 and 4 --- is more appropriate, since it doesn't assign any particular value to any of the traditions.


 * It overplays the military / patriotic angle. Certainly, the reasons for uniting with family and friends cannot be reduced to a patriotic --- and, by possible implication, nationalistic --- frame.


 * Very often, people do not give thanks to anybody --- rather, they simply give thanks for.


 * Johnlumea (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanking is an interpersonal activity. It cannot be done without involving some other person (or perhaps a loyal pet). If one gives thanks "for" something, it is due to somebody assisting you in getting it. Otherwise it is just good luck, like winning a lottery, and nobody is responsible nor has contributed to your good luck. Does it make sense to give thanks for winning a lottery? Only perhaps to somebody who helped you cheat, or for those suckers who think God determines every roll of the dice based on worthiness-- JimWae (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jim: I don't quibble with your philosophically-minded definition of thanking. But I would respond this way: "Giving thanks" is not what many, many people do on Thanksgiving --- not in the technical sense in which you describe it. Rather, they describe --- and express their warm feelings about --- a state of affairs about which they are thankful. I have participated in many, many Thanksgiving meals at which those around the table describe what they are thankful for, without making any reference whatsoever to whom they are thankful for having that thing (or things). Perhaps we should be calling it Thankful Day. Johnlumea (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Johnlumea, traditionally and historically however, individuals did, and many still do, thank God for their blessings. I would encourage you to read the first Thanksgiving proclamation by George Washington, which states: "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 favor - and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that some mention of what "thanks" is doing in the name of the day is called for in the lede - though it must not be presented as definitionally being thanking God. Do, also, keep in mind that this is not the US Thanksgiving article--JimWae (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:JimWae, the Canadian Parliament, when enacting the holiday also states: "A Day of General Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the bountiful harvest with which Canada has been blessed … to be observed on the 2nd Monday in October." To exclude God from the lede when both nations who celebrate the holiday refer to Him is unacceptable. Anyways, Option 1 sounds similar to your Option 4. How would you change Option 1 to satisfy you, taking into account the information I presented here about historical context? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Anupam, I'm not claiming (above) that nobody has directed --- or does direct --- thanks to a specific source, be that source "God, friends, family, [or] soldiers," to use Jim's example, or any other "person(s)." I suggest, simply, that many people don't think that way about Thanksgiving, and thus that Jim's philosophically specific framing is too narrow. There is a subtle but important difference between "giving thanks" and "being thankful." Both approaches are used, and the lede needs to reflect that.


 * It seems to me that we are right back in the same "rut" we were before, with editors (1) asserting privileged definitions of what constitutes the existential act of small-t thanksgiving, and (2) attempting to rank practices using prooftexts. But, as Jim pointed out yesterday: "Nobody has established the relative prominence of any of the traditions." That remains the case. Unless and until that changes, I recommend a lede along the lines of Option 3, which acknowledges the existence of "a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday," then is content simply to list the most common modern traditions. In Option 3, I would suggest that these be re-ordered alphabetically --- feasting, football, parades, prayers and reunions" --- to push against any temptation to conclude that this is a ranked list. The list could be changed, in the event of incoming authoritative data.


 * "I also think that the framing of Option 3's fourth sentence --- "...the unifying value is gratitude...." --- is productive, inasmuch as it is open enough to provide a home for both of the approaches we're discussing here: "giving thanks" and "being thankful."


 * Johnlumea (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anupam: As I've been saying, prooftexts --- including the one you just offered from the Canadian Parliament (which, like any such boilerplate statement from a government legislature, is completely politically driven, and not at all neutral or disinterested) --- these prooftexts don't "prove" anything. Alas. You write: "To exclude God from the lede when both nations who celebrate the holiday refer to Him is unacceptable." I would say that explicitly mentioning "God" is redundant, since including "prayer" already implies including "God." Also: While it certainly is your right to use the capital-H "Him" honorific for God, it does undermine the appearance of neutrality of your position. Johnlumea (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Seems like the best summary. Option 4 could work also. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - seems most neutral; mentions prayer, doesn't drag military and patriotism into it, nor use the hopelessly normative "But this is what it REALLY means" language. --Mike (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Option 3 --- for all the reasons stated (by me and others) above. Johnlumea (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 But not option one. Options 3 and 4 seem like the most workable ones. Dump option 1 all together.--Adam in MO Talk 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Option 4- dump the Columbus Day part, it's irrelevent and adds no explanation or understanding of Thanksgiving
 * Option 4 - Seems most neutral and readable. Option 1 is plainly too WP:POINTY.  -Noleander (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - per Noleander - certainly leave out Columbus Day, we shouldn't define a Canadian holiday by an American one that few people in America even notice. It would be something like saying "Canada Day falls two weeks before Bastille Day."  Smallbones (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - None of them are that great, but option 4 seems the most neutral and covers all of the important parts. Kaldari (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - None of the options are perfect, but #4 would be acceptable only if we get rid of "and prayer." Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday.  Just because Christians say grace before a Thanksgiving meal doesn't make it a religious holiday where the purpose is to give thanks to God.  Christians say grace before every meal (or they should, if they're devout), so this meal is no different.  Christians pray every day (or they should, if they're devout), so prayers on this particular day are not a special occasion.  Thanksgiving is a celebration of harvest time, and a commemoration of the historic meeting between the Pilgrims and Native Americans &mdash; that's it.  Nowhere in the Bible/Torah/Koran does it say "...and God commanded his disciples to eat turkey and cranberry sauce on the last Thursday in November."  Atheists celebrate Thanksgiving, as do Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists.  It's an American (and Canadian) holiday, not a religious holiday.  To represent this holiday as a time to pray and thank God would be incorrect and non-neutral.  Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and the word "pray" or "prayer" appears exactly zero times in the article.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None - I find it odd that we are asked to vote on four extremely specific different wordings that are all quite similar instead of forging a lead piece by piece from the actual content of the article, as leads are supposed to be made. Claims about prayers to God being important are a bit odd, as they aren't any more important to this holiday than any other, and it seems to be inserting Christianity into a modern festivity that largely has nothing to do with it. It certainly would make more sense to mention religion as important to the holiday's founding, but just as important would be a mention that it's not specifically a religious holiday. This whole voting process is completely out of process for the way RFCs are supposed to be handled, and whatever vote there is can be overturned by discussion of individual points, which is how all articles are supposed to be written. Any decision that is made here on a lead cannot restrict how the actual article gets edited, and the lead always must summarize the content. If you have specific topics you would like to discuss, discuss them individually. DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow MOS:LEAD as DreamGuy suggests. 64.136.198.246 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * None per the reasoning of DreamGuy, as above, with which I fully agree.-The Gnome (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option Two is the most neutral. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 1 plus the coincidence of Columbus Day would be most robust and encyclopedic, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 1 because it provides the most extensive yet concise summary of Thanksgiving Day.Geremia (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 is the best of these. I agree with striking the Columbus Day link.  On the contentious subject of prayer: Thanksgiving is certainly not a day (like Easter or Rosh Hashanah) that's set by a religious calendar.  Its origin is secular pronouncements.  Yes, many people pray on Thanksgiving, but many people (especially gamblers) pray on the day of the Super Bowl, too.  The religious aspects of proclamations etc. concerning the holiday should be included in the article but probably aren't important enough for the introductory section.  (What could probably be sourced, for the body of the article, is that original proclamations emphasized religion but that the modern practice has become more secular in its emphasis.)  Option 4 mentions what's central to Thanksgiving, being grateful, and the body of the article can develop that many people express gratitude through prayer.  (JimWae writes, "Thanking is an interpersonal activity."  There's much logic to that, but many people are illogical; they say "Let us give thanks" and they feel gratitude but they don't identify any person or divine entity who is being thanked.) JamesMLane t c 20:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - I think it's the best of a bad lot. Option 4 would be even better if "and prayer" were removed, since thanksgiving is not primarily a religious holiday. However, DreamGuy's argument is persuasive - why these four texts in particular? It gives the impression that somebody is trying to subvert the RfC into returning a lede which contains their preferred words whilst maintaining an illusion of community decisionmaking. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the RFC results above
Looking at the RFC results above it is obvious that most people agree that this holiday is not religious and that God and prayer should not be included in the lede. At least there is consensus on that point. Glider87 (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for removing the word "prayer" from the version suggested by User:JimWae. In fact, many individuals have supported User:JimWae's version, which has gained the most support from the Wikipedia community thus far. In second place, thus far, my version, which mentions also prayer was selected. In light of this fact, I think that it is best to continue to see the responses that come forth. In the end, an administrator will close the RfC and decided which version will be used in the article, based on what he/she sees as consensus in the answers. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there is consensus for not using prayer, the consensus is self evident by reading the comments in the RFC above. The RFC is not about "removing prayer" by the way, it is about the attempts to add prayer (and other references to religion) because the stable version of the lede was one that did not mention prayer in the first place. It is that attempted addition of prayer for which there is no consensus. Glider87 (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam, how do you justify adding "prayer" to the lead, when the word "pray" or "prayer" never appears in the article once? Consider that WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."  If prayer is not part of this article, then why should it appear in the lead?  &mdash;SW&mdash; communicate 14:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could additions to the lead that it is both secularly and religiously observed, and to the article detailing such practices, cut the ice? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a question of giving due weight in the lede, as is the case for the rest of the article. Since the religious aspect is very much in the minority I don't think it deserves a mention in the lede unless it clearly points out the majority view is that this holiday is mostly secular. The RFC supports that conclusion about the holiday being secular. But unfortunately some (Anupam for instance) have rejected giving due weight, this is probably because it undermines their point of view that the holiday is religious. Fnagaton 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Due weight is giving both (secular and religious) some weight, unless you are contending that there are no religious observances asscociated with this day, but that seems both ahistorical, as well as untrue in the present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the role of religion in this holiday is so small that applying the policy about due weight means not including it at all in the lede otherwise people may just read the lede and walk away with the mistaken belief that religion is worth mentioning.Fnagaton 08:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Snottywong, 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:

Moreover, on January 31, 1957, the official act of the Canadian Parliament, when establishing Thanksgiving states:

In light of these facts, it is important to mention God and prayer in the lede. It seems that most individuals are currently supporting Option 4, which does not mention God, but does mention prayer. In my opinion, both should be mentioned but it seems that for now, only prayer will be mentioned. I hope this helps you understand my point. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is cherry picking facts without giving due weight to the other facts that show the holiday is by in large secular. As such it is pointy to try to add prayer or God in the lede. The RFC comments show a consensus that your suggestion Anupam is pointy. Fnagaton 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do suggest to Anupam, that he or she refocus on the body of the article before going to the lead, see MOS:LEAD.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we going to take Christ out of Christmas next? Clearly the foundations of the holiday involved prayer, and I think a lot of folks still do it, if only to pray for the Lions going against the Cowboys (or is it the Christians).  Not in the body of the text?  - then add it!  Merry Xmas.  Smallbones (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! By that argument, every article in the encyclopedia should have prayer in the lead, because "a lot of olds still do it" in relation to lots of things -- lottery tickets, football, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 4, which seems to have th most support reads "Modern Thanksgiving traditions include ... prayer." To state that "most people agree that ...prayer should not be included" is an extremely bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEATTHAT. – Lionel (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear most people chose that one because they were given a bunch of poor options to choose from and it only had an extremely minor mention of prayer. Many people specifically mentioned that specific line should not be there. It isn't a question of not hearing it, it's a question of people doctoring the poll and pretending it means something it doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the comments in full that cite policy, not just looking at the vote number, indicates otherwise Lionel. "I like God and prayer" is not a good enough reason to ignore the policies about undue weight and neutrality. Even if 10 people voted for option 1 based on personal bias for their religion it still would not be a good consensus since it ignores policy. Consensus is not lots of people voting on a certain number, consensus it actually a good decision reached that also follows policy.Fnagaton 08:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't decide to hold a vote on something that is not decided by vote, stack the options so that something that isn't even present in the article at all suddenly appears in most of the options, then try to claim that it must be there. That's just a shoddy attempt to game the system. If you want to put something about prayer in the lead, first you must get consensus to put it in the article at all, and then consensus for giving it enough space in the article that the lead would have to mention it. Doing it any other way is not how Wikipedia works. Currently the push for trying to make prayer a central point of the lead seems to be inspired only by POV-pushing, which is also not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there was an option 5 that didn't mention prayer at all I expect it would be the most popular choice since it is also the more neutral choice.Glider87 (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And if there was an Option 6 that did mention prayer I suspect that that would be the most popular choice. Well there isn't an Option 5, nor an Option 6. We have Option 4. And the result is obviously Option 4. Option 4 includes mention of prayer. You can try to spin this anyway you like, but it's pretty clear cut---and we're just not buying this bizarre revisionism. – Lionel (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering how many comments there are saying how mentioning "prayer" is pointy and shouldn't be used then you would be incorrect to assume that. You have to read the comments and not just which option was voted for, otherwise it isn't a valid consensus. Glider87 (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect User:Glider87. Only a couple individuals have made this claim without referencing any reliable sources. Option No. 4 has nine votes and Option No. 1 has six votes, both of which mention prayer. User:Fnagton's version, which omits prayer, has zero votes. Nevertheless, you can continue to hold your opinion. In the end, it's up to the closing administrator to review the RfC and decide which version will prevail based on the comments, not you or I. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that the administrator looks at what the community have actually said in the RfC, rather than the absurdly misleading summary immediately above this comment. Has anupam chosen a favourable administrator to close this RfC yet? bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously any administrator with religious affiliation should recuse themselves from closing the RfC.Glider87 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So only atheists can close it? That's just as bad. It is better that an admin who doesn't edit religious or atheist articles frequently close it. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone religious would have a very obvious conflict of interest.Glider87 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anupam since option 1 obviously violates policy no matter how many votes it gets it is invalid as far as the results of the poll is concerned. Also option 4 has been voted for with many people saying "do not use prayer". You need to understand what consensus really is, it isn't just a vote. Glider87 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this is getting bogged down in the archaic notion that prayer, god, and religion go hand in hand, which is not the case. (As well as some personal POVs and axes to grind about it). ''Prayer may be directed towards a deity, spirit, deceased person, or lofty idea, for the purpose of worshipping, requesting guidance, requesting assistance, confessing sins or to express one's thoughts and emotions. Thus, people pray for many reasons such as personal benefit or for the sake of others.'' "May there be peace on earth", "Let's hope it doesn't rain", "Please don't let me be late" are all prayers said daily by plenty of non-religious people who are may or may not believe in god, or God. A neutral list of the different activities in which people might engage on Thanksgiving that does not qualify or quantify any them is appropriate for the lead if later discussed body of article, which they are not, making this whole exercise moot.Djflem (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost no one supports Option 2 or 3, consensus seems clear towards 1 or 4. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean option 4 without using prayer. Option 1 cannot be chosen because it very obviously violates policy.Glider87 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it violate policy? It is well-sourced. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1 isn't well sourced, it is pointy in the extreme. It misrepresents a minority of sources when the majority of sources say it is secular. Look for the sections above that show how it violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Glider87 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To actually summarize
Despite the fact most who commented chose option 4 which included the sentence Modern Thanksgiving traditions include feasting, reunions, football, parades,and prayer. any change to the lead according to MOS:Lead}} woud require that the activities in which people might engage as listed would then be expounded in the article. As per [[MOS:LEAD, they are not and therefore need not be included in the lead, As none of those who found it so important to use this forum to promote their agendas bothered to expand on the article with references to any of the activities the lead requires no additions. I have changed it to reflect the content of the article.80.57.213.173 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation

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 favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee" requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of mighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness: Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service 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 sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner r in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative dudes properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best:

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

G. Washington



I just don't get the point of trying to take the religious aspect out of this! Smallbones (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As explained above many times such ideas are not representative of what Thanksgiving means to most people now. For the same reason why the article on the Earth does not try to claim in the lede the Earth is flat, this article does not try to paint the claims of a minority as the majority opinion. Glider87 (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution
I had thought there was a consensus that the lede should represent the body of the article. Most of the current article discusses the origins of the holiday. However, the current lede does not mention it. With that in mind, I summarized the article in the lede this way, by adding three sentences to the end of the current lede, so it read in full:

""Thanksgiving Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada. Thanksgiving is celebrated each year on the second Monday of October in Canada and on the fourth Thursday of November in the United States, and often extends to the weekend that falls closest to it. Several other places around the world observe similar celebrations. Traditionally, Europeans in the "new world" often celebrated harvest festivals or other blessings of good fortune with periodic days of feasting and "thanksgiving" to God. Official proclamations of thanksgiving became a practice. Government authorities came to recognize official days of Thanksgiving, which became fixed annual holidays in the 20th century."

This was reverted, as not being in accord with consensus, or in accord with MOS:LEAD. See, |diff. Since the consensus, as I understand it, is to follow MOS:LEAD, and the current version of the lede does not summarize most of the article (the History section), I do not think these objections are well taken. As there has been long discussion concerning the lede, it may be time to elevate this to dispute resolution, if we cannot come to agreement about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has lots of problems. The 2 I'm concerned about are 1) Somebody has decided to remove all references to religion, which makes as much sense to me as removing all references to religion in articles on Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. I'm not saying that the secular aspects shouldn't be covered, or anything about the weights given to each, but removing all references to religion and the religious origins of the holiday is just nonsense.  It looks like censorship to me. 2) there are much better articles at Thanksgiving (United States) and Thanksgiving (Canada), why do we need this to be more than a fancy disambiguation page?  Smallbones (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your first point, with respect to the lead, at least, and I find it quite odd: "thankgiving" came from somewhere and we know where. With respect to the second, I can see a reason for an article covering the joint and divergent aspects, in the handful of countries, this has developed in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting references to religion in the lede pushes the point of view that religion is somehow important enough to be mentioned in the lede, it isn't. As the guidelines on writing a lede say the prominent facts should be in the lede in a neutral way, other less important facts do not get to make it into the lede. In this case the religious aspect of this holiday is not important enough to be in the lede. The lede in the Earth article does not mention the historical flat Earth theory because it is an outdated historical concept. The religious aspect of Thanksgiving is also an outdated historical concept, which it why should not be included in the article lede. The consensus demonstrated above is that Thanksgiving is not religious, therefore God should not be mentioned at all in the lede. Glider87 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Glider87 is very wrong and is misrepresenting the discussion above. As User:NYyankees51 correctly pointed out, the majority of individuals who participated in the RfC selected Option One or Option Four, both of which mention prayer and/or God, accurately representing the holiday's origins and history. In agreement with User:Smallbones, I must say that the push of a couple users to remove the religious references to the holiday's history/origins does seem like censorship to me as well. Moreover, the assertion that the religious aspect of Thanksgiving is an oudated one is very wrong, considering the fact that every presidential proclamation since George Washington has referenced God and moreover, millions of churches and communities hold prayer services on the day; in addition, saying "Thanksgiving grace" is an integral part of many Thanksgiving meals. If the opposition continues this push, I support User:Alanscottwalker in taking the issue to dispute resolution. User:Smallbones and User:Alanscottwalker, thank you for your analysis. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anupam, you need to propose additions to the content of the article that are reliably sourced and presented from a neutral point of view, if you ever, want them represented in the lead, at all. So draft sections of the article with cites, and you can go from there with respect to the article content, but do not, at this point, start doing that with the lead.  This dispute should presently focus on the objection to the lead, as it does not faithfully summarize the present article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view does not mean mentioning God and prayer without weight, actually according to policy neutral point of view means making sure God and prayer have due weight. This means making absolutely sure that people realise that God and prayer are in the minority and the vast majority of opinion regarding this holiday is a secular holiday. Which is why your lede edit was reverted Alanscottwalker because it gave undue weight and did not follow the neutral point of view policy. Glider87 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Se my response below, your objection to one three letter word, god, is not well taken and certainly doesn't require reversion. Are you willing to go to mediation?


 * Anupam is misrepsenting the consensus. As correctly pointed out in this edit some religious people (i.e. Anupam) "showed up to try to change the lead to be all religion-centered" and they "just wanted to throw some references to God and prayer in the lead". Option 1 cannot be chosen since it is obvious against policy and consensus is against using it. Anupam is also incorrect when he claimed "remove the religious references to the holiday's history/origins" since the article lede did not contain references to begin with in actual fact it was Anupam's attempt to insert God and prayer that caused the problems. Anupam is just trying to wikilawyer and push a point of view which is against Wikipedia policy. Glider87 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Smallbones you are incorrect when you wrote "Somebody has decided to remove all references to religion" . The article lede before Anupam's edit did not contain God or prayer. Even back in 2009 the lede did not mention God or prayer, in fact it said "Thanksgiving is now primarily identified as a secular holiday". It was Anupam trying to push a point of view by adding God and prayer that has caused the problem. Glider87 (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell this article did not contain God in the lede at any point in the last three years until Anupam tried to add it. It is the attempt to add God that is causing the problem because this holiday is secular. So in that regard Smallbones you are mistaken but I'm not surprised because Anupam keeps on repeating the false claim of "removing God from the article lede" so many times it was bound to fool someone into believing it eventually. A review of the article history will confirm the false nature of Anupam's claim. I would like to draw everyone's attention to WP:FORUMSHOP because it is relevant to this situation. Anupam lost a vote for his version of the lede, he didn't gain consensus at all. Now it looks like Anupam is again trying to get his way by bringing up the topic again. This is called forum shopping by repeatedly trying to do the same thing when the previous attempts did not get what he wanted. If this did go to dispute resolution I expect it would only serve to draw attention to the point of view pushing by Anupam and to a lesser extent Smallbones. I would not be surprised if Anupam were issued with a temporary block and Smallbones with a warning. My advice is for you two to leave the topic alone before you attract admin attention.Fnagaton 13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it would be best, if as editors, you stop the fighting about POV, and start concentrating on the purpose of the lead, which is to summarize the article content. Most of the article discusses the origins of the holiday. To not have it in the lead is not going to fly, if this is elevated to dispute resolution. This probably accounts for the outcome of the RfC. So, if Anupam misunderstood the purpose of the lead, than he misunderstood it. But the answer to that is not to assume bad faith, or to sit on a peculiar interpretation of MOS lead, it is to improve the lead and to find reasoned compromise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To put God and prayer in the lede isn't going to fly since God and prayer isn't important enough to go into the lede. Glider87 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As per WP:Lead section "summarize the most important points" God and prayer for this holiday is by far in the minority therefore it doesn't belong in the lead. The secular nature of the holiday is by far in the majority so it would belong in the lede. Glider87 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then dispute resolution is necessary because your interpretation and mine are apparently opposed. "Thanksgiving," didn't just show up one day in the 20th century, as the article makes clear, and at length. I would suggest mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As already explained the lede has to "summarize the most important points" with due weight. The article makes it clear that the holiday is mostly secular, your lede edit did not make that clear at all, it gave undue weight to God. That's why it was reverted. The God aspect is a historical point that is not relevant enough to be included in the lede. Just like the flat Earth historical aspect is not relevant enough to appear in the Earth lede. Glider87 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you stop trying to add God to the article lede when it hasn't mentioned God and when numerous people disagree with adding God on policy grounds. Policy does not support your addition of God. Glider87 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my intention was to faithfully represent the content of the article. Your undue weight point is because my proposed lead had one word "God" in it (I didn't use "prayer"), in reference to the origins of the holiday. Really, for a day called thanksgiving? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say you failed with that intent because your edit did not represent the real world situation. My intention is to make sure the real world situation is reflected in the article with a neutral point of view that gives due weight. Since the original edit to add God was straight after a political attack by a US religious "news" station making sure the article does not become a point of view pushing article is all the more important. Glider87 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears you have failed in that; becoming a POV pusher in the opposite direction is not the right response. You object to one three letter word among scores of words? Are you willing to go to mediation?Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a violation of WP:NPOV to want to push the point of view that God should be in the lede. It isn't a violation of WP:NPOV to argue against people pushing their point of view. As was pointed out the article lede did not mention God or prayer before Anupam tried to add it. If this goes to mediation I would not be surprised to see you, Alanscottwalker, also get a warning for pushing a point of view.Fnagaton 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an odd and nonresponsive statement about an article that covers the history of this holiday. But let's go find out.  Are you willing to go to mediation, where you will be asked to reach a reasoned compromise or not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd bother with mediation. I've checked the user contributions for both Glider87 and Fnagaton. It's pretty clear that they are both single issue editors. Well perhaps not SINGLE issue - but Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Christmas Eve pretty well covers it. Very aggressive editing, threats of blocks, extreme views - it doesn't foretell a very reasonable mediation. Some might even say it suggests sock-puppeting. I'm not sure that I can assume good faith anymore, which means the alternative is to report to a noticeboard, perhaps ANI or NPOV. So G&F please don't bother us anymore - the jig is up as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An account is not a single issue account when you "look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." for example "An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA". Glider87 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I think it is too early to consider mediation. The RfC came out with a consensus against using God and prayer because as several people mentioned it would be too pointy. Also there is a high anger content with some of the comments here. Therefore I think everyone involved including you need to step away for at least two weeks and think through if the article lede really needs the changes. If you think it is important enough in two weeks time then come back and talk about the changes in terms that follow Wikipedia policy. So far the proposed changes do not follow policy. I pointed out earlier that since 2009 God or prayer was not mentioned in the article lede, so there is no rush to go ahead and put it in now. For years the status quo is to not mention God and prayer and it was like that for very good reasons. Rushing to try to add God and prayer in the lede would indicate an attempt to push a point of view. Which would be looked upon very dimly if there was any mediation. As such I advise you all to take that two week break from this topic and really think about Wikipedia policy. Glider87 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a months long dispute, so everyone has had time to try to understand the issues and policy. Even the outcome of lessons learned form the RfC two months ago is disputed. There is no call for anger and mediation is a palliative to that, although it is not a palliative to uncompromising positions. I have started a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard to work through this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was already an RfC that resulted in no consensus for adding God or prayer to the article lede. It was quiet after that result until your change which was witout consensus. Now trying to seek mediation looks like you can't accept the result of the RfC and looks like you're trying to get the result you want in a different place. The change you want violates Wikipedia policy about WP:UNDUE and you have not given a good enough reason to add the change. I would also point out that in the mediation request you did not add all of the people who were active in debate for the RfC. (Ignoring the obvious religious biased ones who only posted a support message.) This makes it look like you are now trying to get the result you want when those other people are not looking. "I want to add God because it is three little letters" is not a good enough reason either. Wikipedia policy can't be compromised by talking on this talk page. I note you have refused to take the two week break and that just looks like you're trying to force your point of view. Glider87 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the RfC has not been closed. Add anyone you want to comment at the DR, or I will add them for you. Generally. that's done with a comment at the DR, saying so and so should be informed or you can do that here.  I just tried to take the most active group. That's part of the issue, there have been allot of editors involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is effectively closed because it has a snowball's chance of being valid.Glider87 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We've already been through this. The article did not have religious claims in it for years because they did not belong here, and the lead is supposed to represent the article. Any and all atempts by people trying to push a religious POV onto the article are against Wikipedia policies. The lead needs to stay at the longstanding consensus version, which accurately describes the true contents of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, we are clear, what longstanding version are you referring to (ie. what is the wording)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this version "While there was an underlying religious element in the original celebration, Thanksgiving today is primarily identified as a secular holiday". Which gives due majority weight to the secular holiday and less weight to the religious, which is as it should be for it to follow policy about neutrality. However you'll find by reading the talk page history that Anupam and others rejected any idea of the lede containing the neutral point of view that the holiday is a secular holiday. Glider87 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it is informative to look at that version, to see some of the roots of this conflict. Over the past year, in some sections the single word "god" was deleted without explanation or discussion, particularly in the first paragraph of the body of the article and in the section on US history, and without changes to sources. See, eg.  (this instance was reinserted yesterday by yet another user). Perhaps, Smallbones is right, in his first comment in this section, at least to the extent of attempted obscuring of the religious origins.
 * Regardless, if Anupam objects to the paraphrasing of the Encyclopedia Britannica article, we should consider rephrase or direct quote: e.g..  "David Silvermn notes, Thanksgiving moved away from its pervasively religious origens as the United States and Canada grew and became more diverse."  If that doesn't work people can explain, as specifically as possible why, and we can try something else, and hopefully reach as broad a consensus as possible and narrow what cannot be agreed (hopefully there would be nothing left) to various dispute resolution mechanisms. It is important to note, I think, that apart from whatever we put in the article, there is apparent consensus that the sources show Thanksgiving was once a more religiously tied observation, and its observation is today, diverse in that respect. The devil is in the details but that's something to work with, at least. (BTW, thanks to Steve at the DR noticeboard for first pointing to that 2010 version of the article, as a way forward). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * People once thought the Earth was flat, now it isn't important enough to put in the lede for the Earth though. In the same way to try to give the impression in the lede the holiday is still religious is not neutral. The lede needs to make it clear the holiday is now primarily identified as a secular holiday. Glider87 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede is meant to represent the significant points in the article. In the article the religious aspect, God and prayer, are weakly represented. This is according to the references. Adding the religious point of view to the lede promotes the religious aspect more than is represented in the article. That is against policy about giving undue weight. It doesn't matter what someone personally believes is significant (I pray to God, I go to Church) it has to be demonstrated to be significant in the article itself from reliable sources. Wikipedia policy is there to stop people who cannot separate their religious beliefs from the rational world. Glider87 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Alanscottwalker, thanks for your comment. I acknowledge that the modern day celebration of Thanksgiving incorporates both secular and religious observances. For example, people visit their family and may watch football games. However, at the same time, many families say Thanksgiving grace and go around the table and give thanks for something in their life; in addition, prayer services and masses are held at houses of worship. As such, the lede should reflect both the religious and secular aspects of Thanksgiving, as User:Johnlumea suggested. In his version, the sentence reads: "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." What do you think of that User:Alanscottwalker? I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded further at the DR, but in general it's a workable start, as others have noted there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Alanscottwalk, thanks for your response. I saw your comment at the DR and responded there. Take care, AnupamTalk 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede needs to reflect that in the present day the holiday is legally secular so I have done so. Any attempt to use the word "civil" instead of "secular" would be weasel wording since the two words mean very different things. Given that someone might want to add religious historical claims into the lede then the word used in the lede needs to be "secular" to neutrally balance the article lede. Glider87 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of making unilateral changes to the lede, please actually participate in the dispute resolution. There, several editors are commenting on how to ameliorate the lede. Once consensus is reached, an administrator will close the discussion and then we can reinstate a new one. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 07:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not unilateral, I cited Alanscottwalker's reasoning for the change. I restored Alanscottwalker's edits because they were more constructive, you unilaterally reverted those changes. You don't seem to understand how dispute resolution works, ad admin doesn't close it, you still need to get talk page consensus. Since your point of view has little chance of being pushed that should not stop good edits to the article being made. You have reverted content made by two different editors, to keep on reverting it would look like edit warring.Glider87 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What Johnlumea proposed, what you quoted, omits due weight which gives a false impression, it is weasel wording. It is a volation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to slant sources or omit sources to further what you personally believe. As such the lede needs to make people aware that this holiday is secular not religious. Glider87 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you cannot demonstrate what "due weight" to give to potential article content then you shouldn't be adding in to the article. The current up to date reliable sources are clear, Thanksgiving is now a secular holiday for most people, which is what the lede should reflect. Any religious claims don't have enough weight. Glider87 (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MiszaBot has archived some initial talk page comments regarding this topic to Talk:Thanksgiving/Archive 3.Glider87 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just summarize here
Some religious people showed up to try to change the lead to be all religion-centered, immediately after real world politicians were attacking others for not mentioning God prominently enough in their Thanksgiving celebrations. These same editors never expressed an opinion here before, never tried to update the article itself, and just wanted to throw some references to God and prayer in the lead. When they found they did not have the consensus to do so they invented up a vote over some bad options to change the lead, when the lead didn;t need changing. Now that they lost their vote they are trying to WP:WIKILAWYER the results to still make the lead say the important part they wanted to put in it against consensus but which they didn't frame the actual vote around.

Point blank, this is just WP:Civil POV pushing. It will not work. People with a political and religious bias cannot come rewrite an article just so that their personal beliefs are promoted.

Per WP:CONSENSUS when a change is known to be controversial you need a clear consensus of editors to support th change. The people who want to change the lead to promote religion do not have a consensus at all, let alone a clear one. Thus any time they attempt to change the article to reflect their bias, it will be reverted, until such point as they can actually demonstrate true consensus instead of mere misdirection. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think those who voted for option 1 should be educated why they are wrong to pick that option, then if they continue to push their agenda they should be warned again, then if they still continue they should be blocked.Glider87 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of faith: it is very upsetting that the article makes no mention to the many Pagan goddesses that were originally thanked during these autumn harvest festivals that Thanksgiving traces its roots too. Norbytherobot (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to get some facts
I suggest everybody involved at least skim through a book of pretty serious scholarship on the subject

I've just started it so it's hard to come to any conclusions except:
 * a blanket denial of a religious connection - yes, God and prayer and all that - simply can not be supported
 * everybody will be a bit surprised

Enjoyable reading for all. Smallbones (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Smallbones, I noticed your additions to the "History" section of the article. Great job on the research! I also found another text and have added some more information regarding the influences of the holiday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:UNDUE it descirbes how adding too many one sided links to an article would give a false impression of the subject. Concentrating just on historical claims when there are modern sources would also fall under WP:UNDUE. Glider87 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All documented points of view are welcome, as required by WP:NPOV. Just include your sources. Modern POVs are definitely allows, as are historical POVs.  There is no requirement to "keep it short" or to "freeze the article at a previous version" in Wikipedia.  Please contribute rather than say "take it out."  Smallbones (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All documented points of view are welcome if they are presented in a way that complies with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. There is a requirement to present points of view with due weight. If you do not accept that the fact this holiday is to most people secular then edits that promote your point of view do not follow the policy regarding neutrality. Glider87 (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would appear now would be the time for those persons who continue to assert that Thanksgiving has become a mostly secular holiday provide the references that support the claim. Since it seems to them that that concept is result of cultural changes in the late 20th century, adding it to the end of the history section, which follows a chronology, would the right place. Given the thousands of years of documented history of thanksgiving that has evolved into the North American holiday, a paragragh would be appropriate and about the right weight.Djflem (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The current references and the article already shows the holiday is now mostly secular. The problem is adding a religious claim in the lede that misleads the actual situation.Glider87 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over old testament sentence
There is currently a simmering edit war over my modification of a sentence participated in by Anupam, Glider and LionelT. The objections I have to the sentence is: it is repetitive to state the same thing in the lead and in the footnote; unneeded detail belongs in the footnote; and the sources are better represented by my sentence. Anupam, when you revert, as you did to start this edit war it is best practice and polite for you to start a discussion on the talk page, otherwise you risk being tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the modification read: "It may be possible to find precursors in the Bible and in early Christian rites." This is not a verifiable statement, as it is not supported by the actual content in the references; the original reference never stated "it may be possible." In fact, it stated that there were numerous Thanksgiving accounts in the Old Testament. You state that "it is repetitive to state the same thing in the lead and in the footnote." Well, do you see how having the original quote in the reference is helpful here? I intentionally add the original quotes in the reference in case an editor may decide to modify the sentence which would make it no longer supported. Anyways, I added two more references that support the original assertion. Moreover, if you read the Dispute Resolution, User:ItsZippy stated: "if more information (reliably sourced) about religious origins can be found, there may be scope for its mention in the lead." Since it was requested that more information be found, User:Smallbones and I added more information in the article on this topic; abbreviating the sentence to misrepresent the original source in light of this request is unacceptable. Also, I'm not sure why you did not fault User:Glider87 for prematurely modifying the lede when this discussion at DR has not been closed; moreover, User:Glider87 did not offer even one comment there despite the fact that he was notified of it 28 January 2011. The main reason for my revert was indicated in my first edit summary which stated: "please take part in the dispute resolution and wait until consensus is reached & administrative closure before making contentious changes." However, User:Glider87 did not make any comment there regarding the modification of the lede. Instead, he chose to edit war and was correctly reverted by User:Lionelt. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, I think it is obvious Anupam is being tendentious because he is blanket reverting your better changes and also reverting simple facts like the fact that the holiday is legally secular. He also seems to be blocking any productive discussion by repeatedly going around in circles and pushing his religious point of view over everything else. Anupam you don't seem to understand the dispute resolution process because it doesn't need an admin to close it. Consensus also doesn't get delayed by someone being tendentious and trying to push a point of view. Glider87 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given this recent revert where Anupam again revert wars and incorrectly accuses DreamGuy of "edit warring" even though DreamGuy had only reverted once within the last month it looks even more tendentious. Not to mention Lionelt utterly failing to comment about Anupam's third revert warring revert despite Lionelt threatening me earlier. But Lionelt is also riding on up to the 3RR limit so probably realised he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Glider87 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The mediator at the dispute resolution explicitly stated: "I'd also advise against removal of aspects relating to the religious elements in the history section of the article." If you object, you are going to need to present your case there, rather than edit warring; remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ad hominem personal attacks and accusations must stop. This page is exclusively for discussion of content. And speaking of content, the source is clear that the OT contains Thanksgiving accounts. This should be included. Your arguments to exclude reliably sourced content are not persuasive. – Lionel (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The mediator explicitly stated the holiday is primarily and mostly secular, something which I've said from the very start, yet you refuse to agree to that in the lede and instead push your religious point of view over and over again.Glider87 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This sentence "Prayers of thanksgiving and special thanksgiving religious services are a part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, which is widely viewed as the foundation of the official Thanksgiving Day holidays in North America." is very poorly sourced. I don't remember Ronnie being a WP:RS for Thanksgiving (or much of anything really). It smacks of a POV push defended by false claims of good sourcing. Back to DR? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pshaw! Who is a better source on why the holiday is celebrated than the President, who each year gives a proclamation on the subject? Note that the proclamations of Washington or Lincoln could be just as easily substituted.  The Baker book which is cited and linked is a very good book by a historian well versed in the subject and is certainly a reliable source.  It makes clear that Thanksgiving is not a simple case of religious vs. secular, but that the holiday has very deep religious roots.  Please read the chapter cited, and perhaps the introduction as well.  You're just pissing into the wind if you want to deny that the facts presented in this book have a place here.  Then there are statements from Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic clerics on the subject.  Perhaps the sentence is over-sourced, but it is not poorly sourced by any means.  Smallbones (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution closed
A Dispute Resolution with regard to this article lede recently closed and can be found at this permalink under the title "Thanksgiving": Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that it was opened with an extremely biased summary and the involved editors list failed to include a major party to the dispute, it is rather silly to hold it up as anything authoritative. Add into that the current discussion on WP:ANI about banning Anupam for massive civil POV pushing, wikilawyering and etc., as well as discussion noting other editors who seem to show up to meat puppet/sock puppet for him on a regular basis... well, I think the only fair thing to do is to revert the article once again back to the version before the POV-pushers showed up. If someone is being banned from WIkipedia for violating policies, change he or she is responsible for that are included in that same behavior also need to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anupam is not banned. Evenso contributions made prior to a ban are legitimate. The only edits that can be reverted are edits made in violation of a ban. – Lionel (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. If decision were found to be made on an article based upon false pretenses, we are obliged to revert back to the proven consensus version instead of the one that is here only because of a coordinated attempt to slant the writing. Hell, you've been pretty much proven to either be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Anupam, so of course you would say that. DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC)Reverting back several months based on a discussion of a single editor possibly being banned?! Not in any Wikipedia rules I've seen.  There are very good sources in the material you've deleted - I know I put them there.  Do please read the source noted above "Biography of a Holiday".  And if you are really serious about saying that there aren't religious origins for Thanksgiving, please list your sources.


 * In short don't even think about reverting this again unless you have some support in sources at least as good as the sources I've provided. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, don't even think of restoring an atrocity of a hack job article when it was put there under false pretenses. The sources already there are as good as the ones you provided and were not cherry picked with the goal of slanting the article. There's a difference between mentioning things factually and rewriting an article to give undue weight to a idea for the advancement of one's religious beliefs, which is what has clearly been demonstrated to be Anupam and Lionelt's business here on this site. DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive to revert what was a months long stable compromise in this way. Anupam did not particularly like the compromise, so that is a red herring.  Everyone on the talk page was invited to participate, so that other stuff is a red herring, too.  As anyone can see, the final wording for the lede was proposed by the mediator not Anupam.  Smallbone's is correct, discuss sources and wording not other editors. Of course, the article body itself can be improved, including the way I suggested concerning the old testament list above (which seems undue), but we should leave the lede alone and reversion is not the way to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to popular belief from some people around here, mediators are not judges who make decisions about articles that then have to be followed. Any lead he suggests is no better than any lead suggested by anyone else. And of course people with an axe to grind like mediators to say what they want to hear and then run around and pretend it has more weight than anyone else's input. That's not how Wikipedia works. And we have to discuss the editors here because that's the problem: problem editors here who wikilawyer and work together to thwart the normal Wikipedia editing process to further their own political agendas. DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not cited a single policy for your actions. On the other hand 3 editors, not including Anupan, are opposed to your edit warring. Continue in this fashion without consensus and you can expect to be blocked in short order. – Lionel (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for reverting back many months, so it should not be done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is plenty of evidence that Lionel and Anupam are meats of each other. I think there is plenty of censensus to revert their obvious pushed point of view changes. Glider87 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reversion included edits by Smallbones (and multiple other editors) and edits after the lede DR, (neither Anupam nor LionelT did those changes). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think due to the obvious agendas (WP:NPOV AND WP:UNDUE) of some editors it is best to go right back to the version DreamGuy chose which is before all of the point of view pushing happened, so I have reverted. If you think any edits are worth restoring then how about you talk about them first? Glider87 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is atrocious. Regarding Anupam, let me point out the facts: You cannot undo months of work, the product of a duly convened WP:DR, claim it is because of a POV editor, and edit war to enforce your version of the article. You are in violation or WP:BRD. Now. Exactly what part of this are you having difficulty comprehending? Or is this a case of WP:IDHT? – Lionel (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The only justification for reverting is if a banned user edits in violation of a ban.
 * 2) Anupam is not banned and was not banned when he worked on this article
 * 3) Anupam was accused of POV-pushing at Militant atheism--not Thanksgiving
 * 4) Other editors besides Anupam worked on the lead
 * 5) The lead issue was resolved by an uninvolved editor at WP:Dispute resolution--not Anupam
 * No your behaviour is atrocious and I will explain why instead of doing what you just did when you made a baseless accusation. Anupam uses a tactic known as "civil POV pushing" which is disruptive. He used the tactic back when he edited this article and he is now on a final warning for those tactics. He has been accused of POV-pushing on this article. There is a difference between "worked on" and taking the chance at "POV pushing" when someone else pushes a POV which is similar. Get your facts atraight because I did not undo months of work, DreamGuy did the change and I agree with ithe change. I have no difficulty in understanding WP:BRD, I note that you have only reverted and did not discuss except to mention something not relevant to the article. Your edits are not following WP:BRD, for a good example look at this lacking anything sensible talk page comment followed by a blanket revert . Your talk page comment not only makes a false accusation of edit warring which is a policy violation you also incorrectly threaten about blocks which is another policy violation. Lastly you incorrectly try to play the "three other editors" card which is obviously incorrect since you cannot claim that because you are ignoring the previous editors, includinging myself, against your claimed postion. You incorrectly conclude consensus is just a couple of editors appearing at the same time and ignore the other previous editors who have argued against your position. Their arguments are not to be ignored. So your claims misrepresent the truth. I also gave you a chance to correct your incorrect accusations of canvassing and I note that instead of admitting fault and retracting you have instead chosen to write more baseless claims above. So as I wrote if you do not correct and retract your claims then your intention was to deliberately post misinformation. Glider87 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Glider87. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Since you told me to stay off your talkpage, placing notice here. Thank you. – Lionel (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
I've put back the very basic sentence about Thanksgiving being a basic part of Judeo-Christian religions. It may be a bit over the top, giving 4 quotes from POTUS, and a Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious people. Please feel free to restate this, or provide a better single source. I plan to do this in the near future, possibly from:

but it is very broad saying essentially that thanksgiving is part of almost all religions which some may consider almost meaningless.

This book btw very much gives the same facts as "Biography of a Holiday" cited above. And both pretty much blow our pretty shallow article totally out of the water. It's not about religious vs. non-religious - it's about facts concerning the much mythologized (both ways) holiday, and where it really came from. I do hope that no ideologically motivated editor tries to keep out the documented facts. That said, it may take me awhile to get to this; please add as many facts as you can in the meantime.

All the best,

Smallbones (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse. – Lionel (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I better clean up that first paragraph a bit. I'm not happy with the writing style still.  Added a paragraph going up to President Washington's thanksgiving proclamation.  Will add more through Lincoln as time permits, then move on to the essentially invented history of the Pilgrim's 1621 "Thanksgiving."
 * I did remove the paragraph on the harvest celebration interpretation of Thanksgiving, including the references to


 * Morill, Ann Thanksgiving and Other Harvest Festivals Infobase Publishing (2009), ISBN 1-60413-096-2 p.28


 * There's a case to be made that Thanksgiving is a harvest festival, but this is not the source to be used. It identifies itself as "Juvenile Non-fiction" and attempts to give the history of ALL harvest festivals around the world in 36 pages. I couldn't read the 5 pages or so on the North American Thanksgiving holiday, but don't believe it can be viewed as a reliable source.  Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not RS. Good catch.– Lionel (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be RS (having editorial oversight for a strictly educational medium) but I agree there should be better RS found and used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)