User talk:Jugoretz

Talk page for jugoretz


 * Feel free to talk to me here

Christmas
I have again reverted your edits. As I said before, "Christmas is considered as one of several primary holidays within the Christmas and holiday season" just doesn't make any sense. Note the double occurrence of "Chrismas": "Christmas is considered one of the primary holidays in the Christmas season"--that's a ludicrous statement. Besides, "is considered"? By whom? Second, the sources, which you didn't address: the link to Boston.com, the website for the Boston Globe, doesn't even point to an article. The second link points to Babyzone--I suggest you look at WP:RS; Babyzone is not a reliable source. The third link points to some article about retail numbers, and says nothing about "primary" unless you are referring to the numbers presented by the retail organization. If that is what you are doing, then the statement makes even less sense: 94% of shoppers celebrated Christmas, so "one of several primary holidays" (which says nothing about shopping!) is an amazing understatement. Those same numbers put the lie to the similar claim in the Kwanzaa and Hanukkah articles, and those will be removed as well. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add to this as well. In the last sentence of the first paragraph of Christmas, the holiday's central importance in the Christmas and holiday season is noted. Perhaps you both missed that. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 22:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--no, I didn't miss that. Christmas is the reason for the (Christmas) season, after all. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. I think overall, you're probably right.  I felt those refs might be a bit questionable, but I just copied them from the Kwanzaa and Chanukah articles, and assumed that since they seemed to have been there for quite some time, they were probably all right.  Bad assumption.  I should have looked at them more closely.  The whole statement really doesn't make a lot of sense, and certainly doesn't add anything significant to any of the articles, and that, with the poor refs, makes me agree that just removing the statement from all three articles is the best bet. Joe (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. It's like "possession is nine tenths of the law"--when something's been somewhere for a while, you figure it has to be there. Happens to me all the time too. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)