Talk:Spring Holiday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 25/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spring Holiday article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (10 April – 13 April 2006)
Archive 2 (12 May – 19 June 2006)
Archive 3 (23 June – 31 July 2006)

Contents 1 Spring Holiday includes other days? 2 Passover renamed Spring Holiday / use of Company and organization websites as references 3 Strawpoll for removal of neutrality tag 4 Sources 5 Merge & move – I'm going to begin it immediately 6 Requested move 6.1 Survey 6.2 Discussion

[edit] Spring Holiday includes other days?

• Also, as stated with citation in the article, Spring Holiday often attempts to include Passover, which is Jewish. For this reason, I've decided I no longer support the idea of a merge, but this also strengthens my belief that the "controversy" portions of this article are ridiculous, as they are based in the belief that the trend is intended to suppress Christianity rather than include non-Christians. Krychek 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I've only found one instance where that was the case, and then it was only the case when Good Friday and Easter Monday were already days off. =) Powers 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Here are some links I found. These are not all about official breaks from school or work, but they do illustrate how common it is to lump Easter and Passover together under the "Spring holiday" umbrella.

• http://www.crayola.com/spring_splash/index.cfm?mt=Stat_Spring
• http://retailindustry.about.com/library/bl/02q1/bl_nrf031302.htm?terms=express+stores+clothing
• http://www.dockwave.com/iconeers/spring.htm
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4561309
• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007SKQMM/102-8829805-1233750?v=glance&n=404272
• http://www.commonsensebeauty.com/blog/?p=132

Krychek 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is like deja vu. =) I had this exact same argument with AYA and CiS some time ago. Apparently this article is NOT about lumping Easter and Passover together in the category of "spring holidays" but rather about recognizing a specific holiday on a specific date that matches Good Friday or Easter or Easter Monday yet is called "Spring Holiday" (proper noun) instead of the actual holiday name. Powers 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it's a distinction between "spring holiday" as a descriptive phrase and "Spring Holiday" as a replacement term. Powers 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• And I say that the only reason you would make that distinction would be if you were attempting to manufacture a controversy. Easter is NOT the only holiday that gets "renamed," and it's not the only date on the calendar when Spring Holiday is granted. To pretend otherwise for the sake of making a point about secularization is dishonest and hypocritical.Krychek 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Can you inform us of another holiday or special day that has been renamed - lets say quite independent of the March to May period - but not necessarily?

In response to the refs given, the crayola ref has already been discussed - I don't regard it as reliable or authorative. Blogs are not authorative. The retail industry ref is talking about seasonal sales with some fascinating info for us mug consumers but otherwise doesn't help much. Not sure what the dockwave.com is supposed to suggest but I would lump it in with the crayola ref - not reliable for anything but images which is not what this is about - it says "Spring holiday including Easter and Passover" - the point is though??. Not sure how to take the Amazon.com ref - just seems seasonal notwithstanding the capitalisation and surely nobody is calling Memorial Day or Mothers' Day "Spring Holiday" - maybe they are in which case more evidence is probably needed and I agree that changes things - I suspect though the Amazon is a one-off and would probably not meet reliable source compared with say the Indiana court of appeal evidence. The Nigelle Lawson recipes are celebrating springtime in the text despite the heading (she is a pom after all) - I don't think it helps one way or the other despite the passover mention. the Commonsense beauty ref has lower case s and h and says "your spring holiday, be it Easter, Passover, or Ostara, and every other way to embrace spring" - don't think it shows anything.

As per LtPowers we have already been around this merry-go-round. By the way, I did support a move of this article and was voted down - see Talk:Secularization of Christmas#Merger of spring holiday and Requested move to Secularization of Christian holidays and the following section: Requested move to Secularization of Christian holidays – INACTIVE. I haven't changed my position. I am wondering if others who are joining in the discussion on this page understand where I am coming from. It may be that perhaps there is an attempt to argue with a POV which in fact I don't hold (I don't speak for other editors). It is really important that the argument is not with editors (one or many) but focusses on article content. I am interested in good articles and useful (and interesting) information which enhances our knowledge of the world. I have no particular bias for or against Easter - I am definitely one of those Christmas and Easter christians but didn't even manage to make it to church for the last Christmas or Easter! So just in case anyone thought they were arguing with a POV warrior (me), not exactly and let's please only focus on content.

As per the earlier discussions referenced by LtPowers, we have yet to find any reference to Passover being renamed specifically as "Spring Holiday". Should a ref be found, I would strongly support its inclusion in the article and the content of the article changing. If there is no ref, then I do not think the article should say something that isn't substantiated. My thought is, people are trying to take a convenient Friday public holiday and secularising it, not to have a go at Christians but to comply with their perception of what is required of a constitutional framework requiring separation of church and state - nothing complicated, no conspiracy - but my thoughts are original research and can't go into the article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I never said those were appropriate Wiki citations, otherwise I would have added them to the article. I merely reference them to illustrate that it is a common usage in this country to group Passover along with Easter under the term "spring holiday," a point which I believe is very salient to this whole argument. Second, if we are going to talk about appropriate sources, let's examine the multiple citations of WorldNetDaily, an organization that has a vested interest in making people believe that this controversy is more important or widespread than it is. As I've said, my problem is with the imagined controversy. I have no problem with an article that neutrally states that sometimes people rename the holiday, without assigning motives. There is not one shred of evidence about motives anywhere, but by mentioning controversy, you imply that the "the other side" does have a motive, and I find that very dishonest. Krychek 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like being called dishonest , nor if the remark was not directed at me, any other editor being called dishonest. Please remain Civil. I have already suggested above that we talk about content, not individual editor's motives. The phrasing could be implied that the content was dishonest, I don't find that as it refers to you imply, so please stay within the intent of the guidlelines and policies.

If they are not appropriate wiki citations and they don't reference that another holiday has been renamed, then what is the point of having referred to those urls above. It wasted my time while I checked them and potentially wasted other people's time too. There is no evidence that passover is linked with Easter as "Spring Holiday", note caps, it is a proper noun (and makes me think that the present capitalisation of the article title is incorrect, but htat is another matter). No holiday is or has been granted for employees to take time off work for passover or for any other spring time date and renamed as "Spring Holiday". For example "Memorial Day" falls in spring but the time off work is given in the name of observing Memorial Day. This issue has been explored before and the discussion made that conclusion. Any evidence to the contrary will of course be include in the article (as I have already stated above).

If anyone feels that some of the citations are unreliable, please discuss them here with reference to the guidleline on Reliable sources. Please don't remove them without discussing them first - but if they don't meet the guideline, they shouldn't be here.

Is a controversy being manufactured? I don't think so. The subject has gone to court and the ruling specifically related to the use of the term "Spring Holiday". The use of the term has been debated by councils who have tried to use the term and have backed down. Both incidents are referenced (see notes 8 and 11). I don't think they are so isolated that they are irrelevant. A supreme court ruling is probably sufficiently notable by itself.

User:Krychek, who raised the suggestion that Easter is NOT the only holiday that gets "renamed," and it's not the only date on the calendar when Spring Holiday is granted. has been invited to provide another holiday or special day that has been renamed. Is there one? I do of course mean a major holiday not the "Wear no underpants day" or "Elvoterra" or whatever. Similarly please provide evidence that any date other than Good Friday has had a "Spring Holiday" granted as leave to employees. I have no objection whatsoever to inclusion of these facts in the article if they are referenced - see the policies on No original research and Verifiability which are vital to the wikipedia but which are particularly vital to this article if it is to be factual an not in fact a manufactured controversy.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, please read "you imply" as "the article implies" in the above and all future statements written by me. The document cited in footnote #10 specifically mentions an attempt to include Passover in that institution's spring holiday. And here is the section of the Reliable Sources guideline that I was referring to: Company and organization websites. Krychek 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As Krychek said, reference 10 is the case for which you are looking. However, I point out to Krycheck that said reference is the only such one I could find, anywhere, and it is a couple of decades old, and it only mentions Passover in the rare case when Good Friday and Easter Monday were already days off. Powers 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passover renamed Spring Holiday / use of Company and organization websites as references

• Because we had already discussed ref 10 in terms put forward by LtPowers, I think it needs to be supported by more evidence, including some instances where employers have given the day off and renamed it. The company and organisation websites are being used in this article to illustrate that the day has been given as a holiday to employees and renamed in the process. The phenomenon is then discussed with more reliable references - there is nothing unreliable about, for example, the University of Tennessee's info and it shows that that uni gave Good Friday as a holiday over several years and when doing so renamed it. The caveat at Company and organization websites is particularly directed at claims the company might make about itself or its products - we are not using any of these websites to say that the company is one thing or another, only that it gives holidays to its employees on Good Friday but does so calling it a Spring Holiday. That is what the article is about - it is of course making the assertion it is a more widespread phenomenon than the few cited examples. We are going round in circles here :-( LtPowers had I thought already made that point above.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which point did I already make? Powers 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, on a separate note, I think this statement: "only that it gives holidays to its employees on Good Friday but does so calling it a Spring Holiday" speaks to my main problem with this article. If we are using links to these websites to show that the phenomenon exists, that makes us a secondary source, not tertiary as we should be. According to WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V, we need to find some other secondary source and cite that, rather than looking up the information ourselves. Powers 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Company/Organization website I was referring to is WorldNetDaily, which IS biased, and DOES have a vested interest in creating this kind of controversy. Krychek 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The secondary sources would include notes 2 and 11 - therefore wikipedia = tertiary source. The relevant points already made by LtPowers were at [1] and [2] The use of worldnet daily is to substantiate the assertions many people believe and Use of this term is often seen as part of, or as an expansion of, the secularization of Christian holidays - presumably WorldNetDailyrepresent a constituency and therefore it is relevant reporting, we are not saying what they say is right, we are saying that people believe the renaming to spring holiday is associated with secularisation as reported by this organisation. If this organisation does not reflect any significant constituency then we should not be quoting it. The site claims to be a leading Internet newssite in both traffic and influence. and to be a Top 500 website, according to Alexa.com [3]. To my mind sufficiently authorative to represent views of "many people believe" assertions.--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Alexa.com rankings are meaningless [4]. So basically, we are to believe that WorldNetDaily is a leading newssite because they say so on their own mission statement? If I can find you at least three sources that say WorldNetDaily publishes misinformation on a regular basis, who will we believe then? Krychek 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I've just read the entire article one more time, and with Crazy's latest edit about church and state, I have to say it's looking a whole lot better than it did in its initial stages. I still think the Greencastle, Indiana, example is more about Christmas than Easter, and I would still argue against removing the NPOV tag, but I am willing to let it go for a while until someone comes along and decides to rock the boat again. Krychek 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Much as it might seem, my intentions with creating this article was not for it to have a biased POV, I initially tried to make it as NPOV as possible. Though I agree that my initial article was not as NPOV as possible, I think it's fine now and all major claims are fully cited. Also, I don't think WorldNetDaily is a questionable source, it's no more conservatively–bias than many major US newspapers are liberal–biased. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we have cited WorldNetDaily other than as representing the views of a constituency - ie words to the effect of - some people do not like the renaming to Spring Holiday as reported by WorldNetDaily. The point I think then that applies in removing the citations to WorldNetDaily is that either they do not accurately reflect that constituency and/ or the constituency is too small or too marginal to be reported in connection with this article. Is that the position you are taking with those citations? I don't think Alexa.com rankings are the be all and end all (they don't capture me nor many other users). They are cited by wikipedia itself though and I think they are indicative - no more and no less - top 500 has some small amount of standing in the scheme of things. That you have even heard of them to take issue with them also has perhaps some standing (very large grin here) - I haven't heard of them but that presumably is one of the joys of living in the antipodes.
• See straw poll reopened below. Note the article had previously referenced Bridenbaugh v. O'Bannon referring to the renaming of Good Friday as "Spring Holiday" being evidence of a secular purpose and therefore not unconstitutional.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strawpoll for removal of neutrality tag

Given User:Krychek's comments of 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) that he would be willing to let it go awhile I suggest another straw poll to determine whether or not there is concensus to remove the neutrality tag? (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). If you vote against the removal of the tag, I would appreciate if you could make clear in the discussion section what your objections are so that they can be discussed and dealt with.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

• Remove neutrality tag

1. A Y Arktos\^talk 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Powers 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep neutrality tag for time being

1. Krychek 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - removed endorsement added after straw poll closed. This editor had not been active here at the time the vote had been conducted, although he had been active on Wikipedia in the last week. It was not clear at the time of vote closing that he maintained his interest in this page. His only contribution to the article to date has been to redirect it (against concensus) to another article without an adequate discussion or even adequate edit summary - breaching the guidleines at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. While he has been active on this talk page in the past, given his lack of contribution to the article, I did not consider him as necessarily having a view that we needed to wait for when closing the straw poll.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • I also said I still think the NPOV tag needs to stay, and I've already stated my reasons more times than anyone thinks necessary. Krychek 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not see any of User:Krychek's reasons that have not been discussed above. We are going around in circles and it is not a constructive discussion in my view. Points need to be discused with fresh evidence; evidence that could if necessary be used in the article as a reference. Reasons or points that cannot be supported by reliable sources cannot move off the talk page.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I agree that the neutrality tag can go, I understand Krychek's concerns on why it should remain, and am not particularly strongly-opinionated on either side of the subject. The article has become almost as NPOV as possible, but because it's a controversial article I can understand the argument for the tag. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I still have concerns, but I think the POV issues have been mostly dealt with. We could still use some stronger references on the pro side, but the article as written appears NPOV to me. Powers 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is OK for an article to be a developing article and many are. Some won't ever be anything else because there are other things to write about and the topic is not that important in the scheme of things.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

*Close straw poll - currently active editors on this article have expressed their opinion 3:1. --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is premature, we need a broader discussion so I am requestion others comment. --Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please review WP:Straw: A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions. Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do. Instead, just give everybody a chance to chip in with a simple yes or no. There have only been four editors on this page in the last week - they had all expressed their opinion. If anyone wants to open up the discussion again please feel free to do so - but please try to cover new ground, not go round in circles.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One never knows how many people might be lurking, AYA. It doesn't harm anything to let it go a few more days. Powers 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Unclosed--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Closed 4:2 - remove tag--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also from WP:Straw: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed. On a similar note, just because someone rebuts an argument to his or her own satisfaction doesn't mean that person "wins" or that the discussion is closed. Krychek 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

• You have cited no reliable sources to support your arguments and, until you do, are wasting people's time - there is nothing to address. --A Y Arktos\^talk 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, in your infinite wisdom, how does one find sources to support that a made-up thing doesn't exist? It's like asking me to prove that there are no elves in your attic. The whole point is, no reasonable person cares enough about the elves in your attic to go to the trouble of proving they don't exist or to write an article about their non-existence. Even so, I did what I could by adding the Bill O'Reilly statement, but that one line doesn't balance the scale in terms of NPOV. Krychek 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Citations — of which we have a dozen — don't lie. This event is existent, and stating so is not an issue of POV, it's verifiable fact. The POV issue here is stating these facts neutrally. We have done this to the best possible extent, and there are no POV issues that remain. Just because Bill O'Reilly "says it doesn't exist" means nothing. I'm sure that coming from your position you don't even consider anything he says. I believe it's more of your defence of political correctness surfacing, rather than a reasonable basis for a NPOV dispute tag. If I am mistaken, please state fully your reasons for thinking the article is POV. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In my view, the primary remaining POV issue is that the article seems to place more importance on the phenomenon than it warrants. I can't really list any specific wording that leads to this feeling; it's just a general impression from reading the article. I also have a few minor complaints with the "Controversy" section: the second paragraph doesn't address the counterargument put forth (somewhere, I'll have to find it) that "Spring Bunnies" and what not were coincidental rather than a renaming of the Easter Bunny; and nowhere is a viewpoint alternate to that presented in the first sentence of the section ("Use of this term is...") presented. Other than those issues, I think it's ok POV-wise. Powers 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an absolutely trivial debate (because the practice in question in no way interfered with anone celebrating Easter) and the debate as represented here concerns Easter, therefore this debate belongs on the Easter page. If, in the context of this article, Spring Holday refers to Easter, I have no objection to moving the entire contents, as is (i.e. without deleting any content) to the appropriate article. If we are to keep this as an independent article, then it would violate NPOV to restrict it to discussion of a Christian holiday when many non-Christians celebrate Spring Holidays as well, for reasons that have to do with another religion, or no religion at all. NPOV demands that these views be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• As has been previously pointed out, celebration of more general seasonal holidays are covered by the article on Spring break. If there are other holidays that have been renamed "Spring Holiday", feel free to include them (with references from reliable sources). This article should not be merged with Easter; the renaming is not of world-wide significance, but Easter is and the Easter article is already sufficiently lengthy. I have commented above on the effect on the length of the Easter article as a result of this proposed merger. The question that this article poses is not whether or not the renaming interferes with anyone celebrating Easter - nobody has asserted it does - but has a religious holiday been renamed with a secular name. That is what this article is about - nothing more or less. If other countries followed the trend (and they may yet) then the article would be expanded to cover that, for the moment the phenomenon appears to be confined to the US. The Easter article is not limited to the celebration or observation of the Easter in any one country. Whether or not an article is trivial is generally not a reason for deletion - I believe this article passes notability guidelines given at least one supreme court case that references the renaming.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, that's the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. And that appeals court takes a lot of cases; it's certainly not evidence for notability by itself. Powers ^T 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AYArktos´s comment, "The Easter article is not limited to the celebration or observation of the Easter in any one country." is a non-sequitor. Of course Easter is celebrated in different ways in different questions., Of course the article should discuss the different ways Easter is celebrated in different countries. This is PRECISELY why this article must be merged with the Easter article, to provide more information about how Easter is celebrated in the US. Does this mean that NO ONE ELSE can add information about how Easter is celebrated elsewhere? That is absurd! And it is silly to think that just because an article describes how Roman Catholics celebrate Easter it cannot describe how Greek Orthodox celebrate Easter, or because it describes how people in the US celebrate Easter means it cannot describe how people in Ghana or Guatemala celebrate Easter! Does AYArktos genuinely believe the Easter article must be restricted to describing only how Easter is celebrated everywhere? first, that is factually incorrect as the article already describes variations in practice. Second, it is just a dumb idea. The Easter article should cover a variety of ways Easter is celebrated in various countries. Adding this material to that article would be a step in that direction. I am stating nothing unusual. The Fascism article describes fascism in various countries; the communism artile describes communism in various countries. The Easter article already does and should describe Easter in different countires. That is PRECISELY why the material in this article belongs there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein from most perspectives, but the fact of the matter is that the term "Spring Holiday" doesn't just replace Easter (Easter Sunday or Easter Monday?) but it also "replaces" Good Friday. It makes more sense to keep the information at a separate article because of the extended holidays that it replaces euphemistically, however I do suggest that this article be renamed and that some parts be more clarified. I agree that the title "Spring Holiday" could apply to other issues not related to this controversy. Although I agree that this content as a whole would belong in the Easter article if it were restricted to that holiday — it is better to have a seperate article on the content than to have to expend it to both Good Friday and Easter. Also, as said previously, a merge with Secularization of Christmas would definitely be appropriate here, and I would appreciate some help in a major merging rewrite with that article if everyone agrees to do so. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What is not neutral about this article? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In many places where people celebrate Spring Holidays or at least take off from work, many people are not Christian and are not celebrating Easter or Good Friday. For these people Spring Holiday does not replace Easter or Good Friday. But this is absent from the article. Thus, the article is biased towards a Christian POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is there a generic "Spring Holiday" being celebrated anywhere else in the world? There is no such thing as a "Spring Holiday" day off anywhere, unless you have citations?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequitor. Your comment has nothing to do with my response. If you are claming that there is no such thing as a Spring Holiday, then we should delete this article imediately as it refers to something non-existent. But you are being disingenuous. You do not really believe what you say. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My response means that there is no other holiday in the world that is referred to directly by certain people as "Spring Holiday", or even "Winter Holiday", except for the Christian holidays of Easter/Good Friday and Christmas. In these cases, an example affected calendar would say: "We are celebrating Thanksgiving Day on 24 November, we are celebrating Winter Holiday on 25 December, and we are celebrating New Year's Day on 1 January". Even though New Year's Day is also a holiday in the Winter, it is not called "Winter Holiday". The same pattern goes for "Spring Holiday" replacing Easter/Good Friday. This phenomenon of replacing the actual holiday name with "Spring" or "Winter" Holiday is restricted to the aforementioned Christian holidays — I can not see what you are trying to get across with your argument, is there another case of this somewhere that affects non-Christian holidays? And if you're referring to a generic spring holiday, that's covered under Spring break. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequitor. People who are not Christian and who do not care about Easter or Good Friday enjoy Spring Holidays. This is not represented in the article. Therefore the article lacks an important POV. Your insistance that only the Christian POV be represented violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this. We turn this article into a disambiguation page, and move our current content on the Good Friday euphemism to "Spring Holiday (euphemism)". In the disambig page it reads: "A spring holiday is a vacation day in the spring time. Spring Holiday may also mean:", and then we list the following: "Spring Holiday (euphemism)", "Spring break", and any other relevent articles. Does that sound like a compromise?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

let´s see what others think. Personally, I porefer adding a section to the article on Easter concerning the secularization of Easter or its decline (e.g. easter egg hunts for people who never go to church) and merge this material into that sectionb. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge & move – I'm going to begin it immediately

I have decided that I am going to merge the contents here of Spring Holiday as well as a certain section of Secularization of Christmas (the section regarding the censorship of Christmas) into one new article, entitled Censorship of Christian holidays. It's currently very late at night where I'm at, and I plan to start the rewrite tomorrow afternoon. Since there were no objections to a rewrite the last time I proposed it, I am assuming there will be none this time. I am also going to turn Spring Holiday into a disambiguation page, with an included link to the Censorship of Christian holidays article. The Secularization of Christmas article will remain, because it covers a whole different aspect of Christmas — I will only be merging this article and a section of the Secularization article. I will soon post my draft at User:CrazyInSane/Censorship of Christian holidays, and you can visit it when it is posted and make any changes you see fit. I think I have the greenlight for merging, although I have a feeling Slrubenstein may object. The truth is, merging this content to Easter just isn't the answer. In that case we'd need to merge it into Good Friday as well, and nonetheless it would certainly be better placed alongside the Christmas controversy material in one article. Any objections or comments, please feel free to post them below. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 05:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - with all due respect I would like to voice my objection. Secularisation is one thing, renaming another and censorship quite something else. Got to go but ... just to let you know I don't at 1st thought support :-) no offence!!!--Arktos ^talk 08:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The renaming can be seen as secularisation. There is no indication that it is done as censorship. I can't see that any ideas are being suppressed nor are ideas excluded from mass communication. Political correctness does not equal censorship. Renaming Easter (or more specifically Good Friday) is not even necessarily political correctness - it is overt secularisation - probably in the main to meet perceived constitutional constraints as well as to cater to all in granting the holiday, not just Christians. This is not the same as censorship or political correctness.--Arktos ^talk 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely with Arktos. Powers ^T 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The title I selected is based on the section from Secularization of Christmas that I was going to merge with this article. The title of the section there is Secularization_of_Christmas#Claims_of_Christmas_censorship. That section discusses all the current political correctness attempts on Christmas, so I felt it was similar to this article's content. I did not name that section in the Secularization of Christmas article, but that's where I got the title. Is there an alternate title you two would like to propose? I'd like to know because I'm wondering if the merge has a green light with a different title, or if the both of you object to any merging?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Secularization of Christian holidays [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I don't think I have radically changed my views even though I am much happier with the content of this article and think it has something to say on albeit a very small corner of the sum of human knolwedge. I would be happy if it said it in the context of secularisation of Christian holidays overall given that we seem to have uncovered no evidence of any other holiday being renamed Spring Holiday.--Arktos ^talk 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think anymore. The whole nexus of articles is so muddied that I have trouble keeping track of what each one is supposed to cover as it is. I do know, however, that "censorship of Christian holidays" is not a good article name because the word "censorship" implies a motive that we cannot assume. Other than that, I just don't know anymore. Powers ^T 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I haveno objection to a merge with an article on secularization. AYArktos is absolutely correct that this is not th same thing as censorship. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging this into a larger article on secularization seems fine. Jonathan Tweet 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It did to me too, but see below - there was no concensus to merge and move.--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move