Talk:Spring Holiday/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV dispute

FYI, in Australia the Christmas Holiday is called just that, not summer holiday. The Easter Holiday is also called just that. This seems to be an American political-correctness thing exclusively. Jachin 10:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm here in response to a Request for comment. Overall, I think the majority of the article looks okay, and given the plethora of external links, I can't see any violation of Wikipedia:No original research. However, I do feel that the following could use some work to help move more towards NPOV:
  • The use of the word "euphemism" seems slightly loaded in this context. It seems to imply that those who use the new terms consider the old terms bad, ugly, or otherwise inappropriate, which would support common arguments about overzealous political correctness and attacks on Christianity.
  • Under The "Spring" bunny, "taken the liberty" is even more loaded, to me, and definitely has some negative connotations.
Also, I'm not sure if undocumented comments from city officials to a Wikipedia user (as mentioned above on the talk page only, I believe) can really be used for rationalization of content, since they amount to as much as hear-say, and those might actually encroach on WP:NOR.
Other than those items listed above, I don't see any other problems with the article. If similar issues continue, I think specific complaints should be cited here for more precise dicussion.
B.Mearns*, KSC 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Bmearns, per your above comments, I've removed "taken the liberty" from the Spring Bunny section. As for overuse of the term "euphemism", I think its actually POV and untruthful to remove this term. This is due first to the fact that these terms (i.e. - Spring holiday, Winter holiday, etc.) are used elsewhere in the world, but not as replacements (euphemisms) for Christmas, Easter, etc. Therefore, we must specify exactly what these terms represent in the United States and that they are cognitively used as secular replacements for the original holiday / tradition's name. So, since we can't have Wikipedia being Western-centric, we need to completely explain why these terms exist, which is quite frankly to censor Christianity. As there are no other religious holidays near the time of Good Friday or Easter, we naturally assume these replacement names are simply to mask Christian origins of these playful holiday traditions (Easter Bunny) and to mask the actual reason one would be off work (Easter, Good Friday). Since America is 90% Christian, it's hard to "assume" that these replacements "may not" be euphemisms for the Christian holidays that they "happen to fall on", especially at Easter when the date of the "Spring holiday" somehow changes every year, always falling on the same day as Good Friday. And as for the "City officals" statement—I did not incorporate those comments into the actual article, I just used them as back-up for my claims. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"... there are no other religious holidays near the time of Good Friday or Easter" is false. Passover is near the time of Good Friday and Easter. "America is 90% Christian" is false; the figure is actually 80-85%. Finally, the "playful holiday traditions" (anything related to bunnies and eggs) are largely pagan in origin, not Christian. Powers 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As AYArktos stated below before I had the time to create this response, Passover began on 12 April 2006, and Friday, 14 April, 2006 had no specific significance to Passover, Judaism, or for that matter any other establishment other than Christianity. While I perhaps should have rephrased my initial wording to "...there are no other religious holidays that fall on the specific dates of Easter or Good Friday", I'm sure you are intelligent enough to have understood my intent. Also, if America is 85% Christian then it could mathematically be rounded to 90%; nonetheless precise accuracy was not my top priority there, as I could not recall the exact numbers. And as for the "playful holiday traditions", my point was that it is overtly obvious that the intent of the secular organizations responsible for these euphemisms is to celebrate the "playful holiday traditions" of Easter (and Christmas) without acknowledging their Christian connotations. The fact that these traditions have Pagan origins is irrelevent to discussion, as they are labeled under "Christmas" and "Easter". In my above wording, "Christian connotations" would have been a better selection than "Xian origins", my apologies. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 03:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While passover and Easter coincide in timing (for obvious reasons), is there any significance for the Friday in Passover? To clarify, the start of Passover in 2006 was 12 April. The Spring Holiday granted as a public holiday in the US, see article references was for the Friday. It is my understanding that this holiday was linked to Good Friday. An happy to be proved wrong if you can explain to me why Friday the 14th in 2006 is significant to others. In 2005 the same holiday was declared on 25 March (see article refs) , a moving date which again seems to coincide with Good Friday, why would a spring holiday otherwise move by several weeks. I have every expectation that there will be such a holiday on 6 April 2007 but passover will start on 2 April in 2007. Has passover ever been declared a public holiday in the US?--A Y Arktos\talk 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaahhhhh!!!

Can't you see this edit warring is tearing us all apart? Ok, maybe you can't. But seriously, the edit war needs to end, can't we describe the quality of whatever Thumbelina proposes here instead of on the edit war field? Homestarmy 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently User:Thumbelina refuses to discuss anything here on the talk page. I would be willing to but her blunt manner of reverting and adding incorrectly cited material has turned me off from initiating that. She also reverted my (factually correct) edits at Japanese era name without an edit summary, which perhaps suggests she is targeting my edits personally. She refuses to discuss anything, and insists she has cited certain material in the "References" section, but has merely lazily added a few links to the "External links" section, offering no information as to how they are connected to the actual article. I believe her actions are unprofessional, but since most users think I am emotionally involved with this article's subject, they dismiss my actions as being emotionally charged. If User:Thumbelina is willing to discuss recent conflicts here, I am more than happy to join her in discussion. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The links are there, CiS, not particularly hidden. If you don't like they way they're formatted, you're more than free to change them. But failing to use inline references is not grounds for reverting a change. Powers 23:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I, thus certainly no one else reading the article, can see any specific connection between the links User:Thumbelina added, and any specific area of the article. We don't need random surfers guessign what the "External links" are connected to, and inserting "Hanukkah" without correct citing is original research. It is not my duty to re-arrange these errors, not to mention I find the "citations" quite inaccurate. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of articles that don't use inline references. As far as I know, there's no policy that says it's required (encouraged, maybe, but not required). In that respect, then, the citation was "correct", or at least "not incorrect", and therefore not original research. Powers 03:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is poor form to fail to use footnoted references when they are already used throughout the article. The guideline states footnotes are an excellent way to cite sources, but they are not the only way; some articles use inline links instead. They are not talking about a mishmash of the two, nor are they talking about some vague external reference, not clearly indicated as to which one.. I concur with user:CrazyInSane that it is not apparent which of the external links Hannukah is mentioned in - can somebody please enlighten me. Citing sources is mandatory and I support the request for specific reliable sources here please.--A Y Arktos\talk 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not apparent? You're kidding, right? How about "Celebrate different cultures by learning their winter traditions" and "Resources for Winter Holiday"? How much more obvious can it be made? Powers 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I respect your intelligence, LtPowers, but I must completely disagree with you concerning the fact that User:Thumbelina accurately cited references to the (priorly undiscussed) additions of Jewish holidays to this article. He/she simply added vague external references to what one may assume is a reference to Hanukkah, but in no way can we make a clear connection. The point of Wikipedia is to make the articles as neutral, yet as encyclopedic as possible, which includes having a sense of order to the citations. User:Thumbelina failed to use the currently used inline linking method in her citations, and in my opinion the citations are also faulty and do not assert any evidence that the term "Winter holiday" is used to refer to Hanukkah to any degree. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Resources for activities over winter, does not mean that Hannukah, or any other holiday is called winter holiday. What convinced me about this article in the first place was references in governemnt and employer web sites to public holidays known elsewhere as Good Friday, being officially documented as Spring Holiday. Vague references in seasonal craft activities is not the same, they would similarly not convince me that Christmas is known as winter holiday; public holidays on the 25th of December do; especially when linked to the moving holiday of Easter when the only rationale for moving the date of "Spring Holiday" is the moving date of Easter in line with the phases of the moon.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I gave more than one reference on "Winter Holiday". Heck, do a google search--there are tons. Thumbelina 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Recommending a google search is not within the guidelines; the onus is on the editor to come up with a reliable source. I have explained immediately above that seasonal craft activities pages do not equate to a euphamism for religious observance being renamed in a secular way. This Crayola page is not an appropriate source for the assertion that Hannukah and Passover have been renamed Winter and Spring holidays.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have a different understanding of what this page is about than I do. The Crayloa page specifically says "Spring holidays are filled with colorful signs and symbols of new life" and then goes on to list Easter and Passover as the spring holidays being referenced. Isn't that exactly what the article is about? Powers 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • LtPowers, please see my newly added section below for a full response of this issue. I think you, I, AYArktos, and User:Thumbelina are all seeing things from a different perspective here. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have requested comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Hopefully we can get some additional input on the neutrality and original research angles. RfC'ers can place their comments here if they like. Powers 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • RfC posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex stating "Concerns over original research and neutrality". Note my initial concerns about neutrality were addressed bu referencing and no longer stand--A Y Arktos\talk 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yours may not, but mine do. The article still seems to me to take a POV, namely that the phrases and terms in question are undesirable. Now, whether my perception is accurate or not is a good question, and one of the reasons I requested comments. =) Powers 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha, sorry, I guess I need to read the entire talk page before commenting, not just the entire section. So I can see this battle has gone on a lot longer than I initially realized, but my response in the top section of this page is still held, as of the current version. From what I understand, Arktos' concerns about referencing have been resolved? Just in case, I'll offer my thoughts on the issue.
Using a single style of referencing within an article is obviously a Good Thing, but as someone pointed out above, failing to do so doesn't mean the edit was no good, it just means it needs some work. If you feel strongly about it, it might be worth taking the time to match the newly added content with the newly added citation and providing your own inline reference for them. If it's not quite that worthwhile to you, you can always post a request for someone else to do it on the talk page (probably under it's own section so people who don't feel like getting involved in an edit war are more likely to read it). And of course, there's always the {{fact}} template. While I don't doubt that reverts of these edits were made in an attempt to better the article, I do think they were going a little over board. Always remember the goal of all wikipedians should be to increase the store of knowledge in wikipedia, not decrease it. User:Thumbelina went about 2/3s of the way towards this goal by including the information and the external links. The only thing left to do is to match the links to the facts with proper citations.
As far as NPOV, I still believe that most of the article is pretty good, except for the items I listed in my response above, however a lot of the comments on this talk page are certainly very POV'd. Obviously, the NPOV rule doesn't apply to talk pages, but there've been strong enough opinions mentioned here that it's hard to believe their owner's are able to completely omit them from their edits, and such a belief only fans the flames of an edit war. Admitting that you're emotionally involved in an article can be a good thing, but I think only if you acknowledge that it's a fault. It doesn't mean you can't edit the page, but it means you need to try extra hard not to allow your emotion to impact your editing, and you need to realize that other users will be that much more crtical of your edits.
A few final comments on user behavior, from another user and human being. Based on this talk page alone (i.e., ignoring the revision history), I'm pretty impressed that people seem to have remained fairly calm through most of this edit war. However, the history tells a pretty different story. I'm not sure why User:Thumbelina has apparently refused to join the discussion on the talk page, but in my opinion, it certainly doesn't help de-escalate the situation, and edit comments alone are not a valid way to discuss things. Finally, I can see one of you has already been warned about sock-puppeting. That's a very dangerous thing to get into, and more than likely to get you booted. And frankly, it's quite transparent.
Alright, well I'll step off my high horse now. Sorry if that was long winded or overly authoritarian. I hope it will help resolve the situation. B.Mearns*, KSC 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Source for passover / hannukah

Crayola craft pages, as mentioned above, do not equate to source that these holidays are called by secular euphamisms. They refer to seasonal activities--A Y Arktos\talk 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this motion, and add a friendly warning to User:Thumbelina that his/her edits concerning these invalid sources will be reverted unless a concensus can be reached on this page with her involvement (or better sources provided). — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • At one stage this link to the National Retail Federation was added. It makes no assertion that spring holiday = passover (or Easter). It notes that chocolate sales go up in spring because of the Easter/Passover season. It is not a useful link for anything other than perhaps chocolate sales figures. I am also fascinated that 16% of Americans dine out at Easter, but really a source for another article - note they use Easter in that context , not "The spring holiday".--A Y Arktos\talk 00:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This "Reach Every Child" reference states: "Late November and December usher in a season of celebrations for many cultures and religions. Ramadan, Hanukkah, Christmas and Kwanzaa are four of the more widely recognized festivals celebrated during these months." At no stage does the Reach every child ref equate winter holiday with Christmas or Hannukah. It is talking about the coincidence of season and religious festivals. The reference is not actually strictly correct as Ramadan of course moves through the year as it is a strictly lunar festival (see Ramadan (calendar month)). The allusion to Kwanzaa is interesting and should go into the article, at least as a see also. However, because of the Ramadan innaccuracy the ref should not be used, it is hardly reliable.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro. rewrite? Mass confusion?

In light of User:LtPowers' recent comments regarding his understanding of what this article is all about, there may be the need for some rewrites or clarifications about this. I think there are two different opinions as to what this article represents, and I think myself and User:AYArktos are looking at this article in a different light than User:Thumbelina and LtPowers. Here are the two different viewpoints as best I can describe them:

  1. As per myself and User:AYArktos, this article documents the specific replacement of a holiday name (as of yet, only Christian ones) with a secular replacement. We are referring to the undisputable fact that U.S. government, businesses, schools, etc. specifically refer to Christmas Day (25 December) as "The Winter Holiday" and also Good Friday (14 April 2006) as "The Spring Holiday", and Easter, Easter Monday, and so on.
  2. As per User:LtPowers and User:Thumbelina (I assume), this article represents a broader period of holidays, encompassing Christmas, Hanukkah, and so on being replaced with secular terms like "Winter holiday break / period".

The reason the links that Thumbelina, and now LtPowers, are adding are not feasable is because they do not assert that the term "Passover" or "Hanukkah" are specifically being targeted to be replaced with secular terms— just that they, along with Christian counterparts, are being replaced by a broad umbrella term (i.e. - The winter holiday(s) period). I assume that only Christian holidays are targeted because the media wishes to exploit their secular contents (Jewish holidays do not have secular content) without acknowledging the holiday name. I think this article is becoming a big mess and we need to discuss what needs to be changed and cleared in the opening introduction. Specifically, I think there should be a rewrite of the list of examples that reads "holidays such as Easter, Christmas, Hanukkah, Passover" because the Christian holidays are targeted in a different way than the alternate ones, and this should be noted. When I created this article it was my intent to document the specific euphemistic actions that are being carried out on Christian holidays, this is not occurring with Jewish/other holidays. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I support user:CrazyInSane's interpretation that the article discusses the secular naming of religious holidays. In particular it documents the moving public holiday called Spring Holiday which coincides with Good Friday and Easter Sunday in the Christian calnedar. This article is not about the season or conincidences with the season, eg chocolate sales go up in spring (or autumn depending on where you live). Similarly multicultural festivals are not the same thing - In Australia we have had overt multiculturalism since the Whitlam era (1972), we still have a natinal closedown for Christmas and Good Friday (named that way by all without exception, including in the statutes despite constituional separation of church and state) and now increasingly Anzac day. Families that we know well who are Muslim and Chinese (not Christian) celebrate Christmas with trees, presents, ... they don't pretend it is anything else. They also celebrate Eid ul-Fitr and other Muslim holidays in the case of the former family and Chinese new Year in the case of the latter. If you want to write about seasons, try another article. If you want to write about multiculturalism, similarly try another article, as also with separation of church and state. All those things impinge but are not what this is about. If you find the usurption of a religious holiday, such that a euphamism applies to it, this is your spot, but please supply reliable named references.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, first of all, take a look at page 3 of this link: [1]. There, they specifically state that the "Spring Holiday" should accomodate Passover in the event that Good Friday and Easter Monday are already days off. Granted, that makes Passover a tertiary concern, but it specifically addresses your point 1 above.
Second of all, if point 1 is indeed what you wish the article to be about, I question the notability of this phenomenon. I concede that it occurs, of course, since there are indeed references to it. What I doubt is that it's widespread or common. If that's all the article is about, a merge into Secularization of Christmas (or my once-proposed Secularization of religious holidays super-article) would be more appropriate. If not a merge, then I strongly suggest expanding the article to include more discussion of item 2 above. Powers 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi as below, this article is not about the Spring break. So the notion that the spring holiday should accommdate passover does not equal the appropriation of passover as a secular holiday. It could be note in the spring break article that the break coincides with religious holidays.
Notability is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipeida per se. Verifiability is. The renaming of Easter has been verified and is referenced.
Notwithstanding that, I would not object to a merger with Secularization of religious holidays, and supported the notion with a discussion at Talk:Secularization of Christmas#Merger of spring holiday and_Requested move to Secularization of Christian holidays. Various people opposed including LtPowers and CrazyInSane. Happy to reopen if change of mind from two of the opposees.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • LtPowers, I think you are misunderstanding. The link you provide above accurately acknowledges Good Friday and Passover as Good Friday and Passover. Your source does not pretend that either of these holidays is "The Spring holiday" or any other euphemism. Just because they note these two holidays under an umbrella of "Spring holiday(s)", does not mean they are targeting either holiday for eradication. In the sources that I have provided, there is no mention of Christmas, Easter, or Good Friday by their proper names—they are completely referred to as "Spring holiday" and so on. The only source you can provide that would work is one that went something like "We will be gathering on the Spring Holiday on 12 March, 2006" (they would be referring to Passover). So far all your sources also include Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, and other holidays under an umbrella term. This is insufficiant for the article content. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, as for the merge into Secularization of Christian holidays, we would first need to discuss how the merge would occur and how to write the entire article. We'd also have to discuss and reach consensus at the Secularization of Christmas talk page. I will not support this merge personally until we have reached concensus as to how it will be written. Should it be called "Secularization of Christian holidays"? Incorporating only Easter, Christmas, etc? or "Secularization of religious holidays" as I assume LtPowers would rather—incorporating the "so-called targeting" of Jewish/other religious holidays for secularization? (Personally, I believe secularization of non-Christian holidays does not exist, since their celebratory aspects remain unscathed and religiously intact). In conclusion of these comments, I will support merging this "Spring holiday" article to "Secularization of Christian holidays" along with the "Secularization of Christmas" article—if we can arrive at a good article layout. I oppose "Secularization of religious holidays"—there is no evidence of non-Christian holiday secularization. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Notability is not a criterion for inclusion? Last I checked, notability isn't just a criterion, the lack of it is a criterion for speedy deletion in some cases! My point is that this (meaning the limited sense of "Spring holiday" favored by CiS and AYArktos) just isn't a widespread phenomenon; there have been a few isolated cases of it occuring, and yes, we can all agree it's silly, but it doesn't deserve an article. It might be worth a passing mention in some other article, be it a larger article on other uses of the term "Spring holiday" or the existing Secularization of Christmas article, but here, by itself, it seems to me to be stirring up a controversy rather than reporting on one. Powers 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm, where do you get the notion that this subject doesn't deserve its own article? Frankly, there are more references in this article than most other controversial articles. I could agree on a retitling, and I may be forced to agree with a merge, but only if the merge is to "Secularization of Christian holidays" whereas the main focus of the article would be on the subject of this article and the closely related Secularization of Christmas article. This article documents real-occuring events — seasonal, perhaps — but no less important than any other articles. There are much less significant subjects being made into articles at Wikipedia. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Powers; the very existence of this article is POV in the extreme. The real-world occurrences of this phenomenon are minimal and not at all widespread (as evidenced by the lack of decent citations). Without people trying to create controversy where none really exists (as some people are doing here), this would be a non-issue. Krychek 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am inclined to disagree. If you checked the citation you'd see that this event is existent. Regardless of how widespread, it certainly deserves a place on Wikipedia and is in no way "Original research", or "non-notable". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is disputing that the phenomenon exists. However, every phenomenon does not deserve a place on Wikipedia. The question is whether this is notable enough to have an article. Another important question is, does the very existence of this article present a POV? I say yes to that second question. To have an article on this extremely limited phenomenon is to imply that the phenomenon is widespread, or, worse, that it is caused by conscious adherence to a movement rather than simple overdone political correctness. Powers 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am failing to understand your logic. How is it that the very existence of this article is POV? Nowhere in this article is there an assertion made that this phenomenon is widespread, it states specifically that it occurs only in the United States, and periodically Canada. And nowhere in the article does it say that the entire phenomenon is a "conscious adherence to a movement", the article is totally NPOV in the fact that it simply explains the phenomenon, with verifyable citations. Many controversial articles have substantially less citations, thus are much more susceptible to whatever it is you're complaining about. The evidence shows that this phenomenon is widespread within the USA, because the citations come from random areas of the US; both rural and urban. Thus, the article states there is only evidence showing the existence of this phenomenon in the United States alone, nowhere else. Newtonmas is certainly not widespread, but is notable enough for an article space due to its citations. Please stop criticizing this article until you alter it to your specifications (and then discussion to your alterations will follow). It's not going to be deleted. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine. See below. Powers 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There are quite adequate citations to support the existnece of this article. As before I would support a merger to "Secularization of Christian holidays" but having tried before, there was no concensus to proceed.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 17 May

Comments on edits by LtPowers and Thumbelina. Some issues have been addressed above, including responding to LtPowers assertion about the seasonal holiday time.

  • Tag of POV - when you tag ALWAYS please discuss the tag on the talk page, what the specific problem is, even if it is only to say there is a discussion on the talk page and it is not resolved yet. If it is another issue, for example, original research, lack of references, other editors should be informed. Otherwise I see no reason why the tag should not be removed. This article is referenced and it does not comprise original research (thanks to its referencing).
  • The Wisoconsin ref. Firstly, the title of the ref should be decapitalised, ie you should not cut and paste block letters, it is poor style. Looking at the content, it talks about religious holidays and the need for students to go home. It notes the coincidence of holidays in spring. It does not rename any religious holiday as a spring holiday - it acknowledges each of them. It is not relevant to this article as per the discussion above. Spring break does not equal the renaming of Easter as "Spring Holiday". American summer holidays coincide with the 4th of July too, so what. Dates coincide with seasons.
  • There is another article about Spring break, this article is not a fork. Appropriate referencing might be in the see also section to make it clear, rather than the current edit to line 17.
  • The Tampa tribune ref is not relevant in the context it as given, ie in the spring break idea. It is relevant for the quotes,
    • ""A school board cannot recognize a religious holiday for the sole purpose of recognizing a religious holiday," Gonzalez said at a meeting packed with dozens of members of the Muslim community, some pleading to have no school on holidays for all religions. So many people celebrate Christmas that businesses can't operate on that day" - which explains why Christmas is recognised as a public holiday, not for religious reasons necessarily
    • "Only board member Jennifer Faliero voted against the new calendar, saying she checked with other lawyers and believes Good Friday is a secular holiday: "It is now about the Easter Bunny. ... They have taken religion out of it completely."" - an assertion about the secularisation of Easter.
  • All the changes highlighted by this diff I believe are inappropriate, including the uncommented on POV tag. To avoid a revert war, I will not change back for 24 hours, to allow comment.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything else aside, what problem do you have with the changes I made to the "See also" section? One of the links there redirected back to this very page, and the other inexplicably linked "Spring bunny" to "Easter bunny" instead of linking the actual text "Easter bunny" which was right there. "See also" should be used to point to existing articles, not point to other phrases that aren't themselves articles. Powers 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding the POV tag, you say "This article is referenced and it does not comprise original research (thanks to its referencing)." What does that have to do with POV? Nothing. The article seems to me to take a strong anti-euphemistic tone, in part because it comments that there's a controversy without providing any sources for that claim. That also ties in with my notability complaints -- there's no evidence that this is at all a widespread controversy, even in the places where it's occurred. Powers 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The link to the Tribune article refers specifically to a spring break that is not tied to Easter OR Passover; that is completely relevant to the sentence that ends "that is not within the timeframe of Easter". Powers 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Finally, neither you nor CiS have yet made a case for WHY this article should only be about the rare replacement of "Easter" verbatim with "Spring holiday" (or "Spring" when used as an adjective) and not the broader uses of the same term. Would you advocate a disambiguation page so we can direct people to "Spring holiday (euphemism)" or "Spring break" as appropriate? Powers 02:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No problems with the changes to the See also section. I also have no problem to a a dab page or dab link at the top of this article directing people to the Spring Break. I favour a top dab link along the lines of {{Otheruses4|the use of a secular term for religious holidays|the seasonal vacation time|Spring break}}. I will place.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 19 May

        • Well, thanks for allowing 24 hours for comment. It's too bad you ignored nearly all of them. I do thank you also for removing the crucifix image; it goes a good ways toward alleviating my POV concerns. However, the POV of the article is still in dispute, so it's a bit disingenuous to remove the tag, don't you think? I've also re-added the Passover reference, although I concede on the Hanukkah one. I've also requested citations for the many claims of controversy in the article, since none of them are sourced; that would also go a long ways toward alleviating my POV concerns. Powers 01:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not ignore your responses, and if I said I would allow 24 hours, I do so - did you need longer?
  • I acknowledged the changes in the see also section.
  • I have placed a dab link. Spring break does not equal spring holiday has already been dealt with.
  • User Thumbelina, who placed the tag, has not responded.
  • I failed to see what is wrong with an anti-euphamistic tone - this article is saying there is a euphamism, it documents the euphamism, what is the problem. It is notable - some people feel very strongly that "bloody shovels" should not be renamed spades.
  • However, I have no problem with a citation being required to say it is indeed a controversy - need time to find one or perhaps someone else will come up with one - I have to do something else (real life).
  • You have ignored my concerns about the Wisconsin ref (except for the caps - thanks:-) ), it does not refer to Passover as anything but Passover, it says (at length) a student break at this time of the year would be a good idea for students to go home to their families and celebrate religious observances.--A Y Arktos\talk 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that you left 24 hours for comment, then proceeded to make most of the changes you wanted to anyway, rather than address my concerns about them here.
While it's true that page 2 of the Wisconsin reference mentions a student break, if you look at page 3, it's specifically addressing a holiday referred to as "Spring Holiday" which is (sometimes, admittedly) positioned on the Friday nearest Passover. It is, therefore, a specific holiday for Passover that is not referred to as "Passover".
There are several minor POV issues I have that add up to a major problem, in my opinion. In about an hour or so I will place them in a separate section below for ease of reference. Powers 11:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

  • As was noted by the editor who came from RfC, the word "euphemism" is very loaded in this context. I realize that "euphemism" is a perfectly legitimate term to describe this, but it has negative connotations in modern English.
  • The lead paragraph mentions that "many consider them to be euphemisms engineered [another loaded term] to avert recognition of, or even to secularize [still another] religious holidays" without presenting the alternative argument, which is that they are (perhaps overzealous) attempts to be politically correct [another loaded term, granted; different wording would be better].
  • The "politically correct" argument is presented later on (again the wording needs to be changed for neutrality).
  • The repeated uses of scare quotes (around "Spring", "holiday", and "banning") contribute to a biased tone.
Powers 12:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed one instance of "euphemism" in the article, but can hardly see how its usage is inappropriate for this article. Are you suggesting that it's POV to refer to these as euphemisms? I am at a loss for alternative means of explaining the phenomena. Use of "Spring holiday" to replace Good Friday or Easter Monday can be defined as nothing other than a euphemism, or can it? Perhaps "engineered" is too loaded, but what do you see wrong with "secularize"? Certainly it is obvious that the intent of the secular organizations responsible for these euphemisms (or "replacements" if you will — which is the new euphemism for the actual word euphemism) is to secularize the presentation of these holidays by removing their religiously-connotated title? And as for the scare quotes, that was not at all my intent — it is simply almost neccesary to either quote or italicize the word(s) "Spring holiday" or similar, because they do not flow well in sentences thus are easily confusing, and are not well-known. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I am saying is that I have concerns about the use of the word "euphemism" due to its negative connotations in modern English. What else do you want me to say? As for the word "secularize", I most definitely disagree that it is obvious that a) "secular organizations" are responsible for the use of the new terms (unless you simply mean "secular" as in "not religious") and b) that they had a specific intent to secularize the holidays. Claiming so is original research, whether you think it's obvious or not. The scare quotes are unnecessary, I think; how is "The Spring Bunny" any different than "The 'Spring' Bunny" except to imply that the latter phrasing is deprecated? Powers 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is only your POV that the term "euphemism" has negative connotations in modern English, I disagree completely. It's a perfectly reasonable term to use to describe these occurances. And as for "secular organizations", what else could I mean besides "not religious" — that's the definition of "secular". They don't have specific intent to secularize the holiday names — they just do it ... there is copious evidences, as per the References section. Also, by "scare quotes" I may be misunderstanding here ... by scare quotes do you mean "The Spring Holiday" or "The 'Spring' Holiday" ... because there are none of the latter in this article?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it may still be POV, but I'll second the notion that "euphemism" has negative connotations in this context. To me, it means that the people using the new terms consider the old terms undesirable, even offensive (see Euphemism). In this context, that means that the people using the secular terms consider the religous terms offensive, and this could be seen as an argument backing the idea that the secular groups are against Christianity. B.Mearns*, KSC 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As "euphemism" is defined as "an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive", I cannot see how one can logically conclude that this definition does not summarize the intent of those who replace "Good Friday" with "Spring holiday". I'm not suggesting that these non-religious organizations are against Christianity, merely that Christian holidays are the only religiously-connotated holidays that appear on (the American) national holiday calendar, and due to the fact that not 100% of Americans are Christian, these secular-based organizations feel that the fact Christian holidays are recognized nationwide is "offensive" or "troubling" to non-Christians. If perhaps you disagree with my statement, I fail to see an alternative for "euphemism", and also fail to see how it is negatively charged, due to the fact that it does not imply that those who use "Spring holiday", etc. are anti-Christian in any sense. I almost feel (both of) you are suggesting we put in place an actual euphemism for the word "euphemism" as ridiculous as that sounds. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think the terms are being used by people who find "Good Friday" or "Christmas" offensive. It could just be that people are trying to be more inclusive, rather than trying to be less offensive. Also, why is it ridiculous to use a euphemism for the word "euphemism"? Powers 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not being specific about the scare quotes. Specifically I was referring to the section header "The 'Spring' bunny" (in which "Spring" is surrounded by scare quotes), the section header "The 'holiday' tree" (in which "holiday" is surrounded by scare quotes), and the phrase "... for 'banning' the use..." (in which "banning" is surrounded by scare quotes). These usages seem to me to be implying that "Spring" and "holiday" are undesirable words in those contexts. The "banning" reference might be ok, after a second look, since Target did not "ban" the word Christmas, but that is indeed what AFA was protesting. It could use some clarification there. Powers 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Please place comments on the current version (my rewrite of today) here. Powers 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overall liked the rewrite, but perhaps you should've proposed it here prior to making the change. The intro. section rewrite was a good decision, it makes more clear what this article is about and why it's titled "Spring holiday". I removed some perhaps emotionally charged sentiments on your part, regarding the non-Christian origins of the secular aspects of Christmas/Easter. That has nothing to do with the subject matter at this article, and has a perhaps anti-Christian sentiment. Also shortened up the "Controversy" intro. section due to it entirely being made up of non-notable ({{fact}}) tags. Removed the quotations (" ") around Easter and Christmas. Lastly, I think the rewrite may be a step in the right direction but in no way is this article perfectly composed. I think some alterations, be they major or minor, are still largely needed within this article to balance NPOV and facts— CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel the revisions you've made enhance bias rather than remove it. For one thing, there is absolutely no reason to say, in the first sentence, "Christian holidays such as". "Spring holiday" is not used to replace any other Christian holidays that I'm aware of. (You could argue Easter Monday, but it's more of a Easter observance than a holiday in its own right.) There's no need to specify "Christian" except to imply "They're attacking Christianity!". It reads fine without that qualifier. For a second thing, you've removed from the Controversy section all of the opposing arguments, leaving only the anti-euphemism arguments. I must remind you that we have an obligation to present all sides, not just one. For a third, minor point, I can't figure out why you removed the link to Christmas Tree#Name controversy. =) Powers 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • In response to your first concern, there is indeed a reason to specify "Christian holidays such as", because Wikipedia doesn't expect everyone (or anyone) to know that Easter and Christmas are Christian holidays, and in no way does this imply that "they're" (whoever that is) attacking Christianity in any way. It allows anyone and everyone to know that Easter and Christmas are both Christian holidays. "Such as" is used so as to imply that it is possible that other Christian holidays are being generically replaced. Nowhere here does anything imply that this is negative in any way, thus no bias or POV. As for the "Controversy" section, perhaps we should remove this until citations are found for claims. The "Holiday tree" and "Spring bunny" sections can remain since they are cited. Also, since you renamed this section to "Controversy", given the title, there is indeed no incentive to include both opposition and support. Only controversial elements need be mentioned. I removed the link to Christmas Tree#Name controversy because I removed the titles for "Spring bunny" and "Holiday tree", placing them under the umbrella of the "Controversy" section. And do remember, if AYArktos (or anyone) disagrees with your rewrite there is no consensus to rewrite and it will be reverted entirely. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Two people does not a consensus make. "Controversy" sections do indeed need to present both sides of the controversy. I don't see any need to explain that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays; how is it relevant to the article's topic? What other holidays are being generically replaced by "Spring Holiday"? As for consensus to rewrite, you're the one who told me to do it. I have tried to remain relatively civil through this entire situation, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult in the face of your responses to my thoughts. You seem to have taken a very "I'm right; you're wrong" position, and don't seem amenable to opposing viewpoints. I hate to criticize you personally like that, but it's seriously affecting my own ability to contribute. Powers 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Firstly, if you do recall, the first thing I wrote in response to your alterations was : "Overall liked the rewrite, but perhaps you should've proposed it here prior to making the change. The intro. section rewrite was a good decision, it makes more clear what this article is about and why it's titled "Spring holiday"". Now given the differences in opinion you and I share, I would call that progress. You can't expect me to magically agree with all your decisions on the ball. Also, one person does not a consensus make. There is/was no consensus for you to make a major rewrite, but again, I'm not saying I'm going to revert it. And as for adding "Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas" at the beginning opening of the article, I consider this customary because not including "Christian holidays such as" is IMO more Christo-centric because it is then assumed that everyone knows all about Easter and Christmas and that they're Christian holidays. I may have suggested you do a rewrite, but this doesn't mean it is a consensus agreement. Like you said, "two people does not a consensu make". As for your closing response, as I said above I am not taking a "You're wrong, I'm right" position, otherwise I would've reverted your revision (which I am entitled to do). I made some minor alterations which I find decreased bias. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Still watching :-) At first pass - no objection to the rewrite. Particularly like the court case inclusion. Is the NPOV tag still warranted? --A Y Arktos\talk 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The court case was already there, but not named, and the summary was incorrect about what the case said on the topic. I believe CiS has POV issues with what's there, and I have POV issues with the changes CiS made. So, yeah, it's still in dispute. Not that it's exactly bringing a plethora of editors over here to help with this. Powers 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If people really don't know that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays, they can click on the links (that's why we link so heavily, after all). A more relevant, less PoV descriptor would be "religious holidays" since the whole reason for changing the names has to do with separation of church and state, NOT an attack on a specific religion. Krychek 13:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Where are you getting the information that the whole reason for changing the names is to do with Separation of Church and State? If they were attempting a complete separation, then they wouldn't even celebrate the secular aspects of these Christian holidays. Also, the actual term "Seperation of church and state" implies Christianity — Jewish communities have synagogues and Muslims have mosques, not churches. I continue to support the "Christian holidays such as" prefix in the opening sentence. It is simply better structure if nothing else, and not including the "Christian holidays such as" would imply that these holidays apply to anyone and everyone. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • CiS, you seem a bit unversed in church-state issues. "Church" is a generic term that has been used from the very beginning to refer to a religious community; the meaning of "separation of church and state" is quite clear and no one construes it to refer only to Christianity. Also, I believe Christmas and Easter (especially Easter) do indeed "apply" to whomever wants to celebrate them. The reason the phrase doesn't belong is because it implies 1) that other Christian holidays are being euphemized and 2) that the reason they are being euphemized is because they are Christian holidays. Both of those implications are untrue. Powers 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand that the term "church" is used generically in this sense, but I dislike the fact that it is used to envelop all religions under the term "church", this can be viewed as both anti-Christian and Christocentric, especially since the term is used only in the US, in which the population is over 80% Christian. Secondly, as for your POV of implications from the debated opening statement, the 1st point is invalid. The current sentence states "Christian holidays such as Easter or Good Friday"—there is alternatively Christmas Day, possibly Christmas Eve, and evidently St. Valentine's Day (see the article). As for the second point, there is no explicit statement, i.e. "Christian holidays (which are specifically under attack) such as Easter or Good Friday", therefore point #2 is invalid as well, being merely your POV and interpretation of unspoken words. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No one else calls Christmas Day, Christmas Eve, or St. Valentine's Day "Spring Holiday", CiS. "Spring Holiday" is the subject of the opening sentence, which says that it's used to replace holidays "such as" Easter and Good Friday. What other holidays is "Spring Holiday" used to replace? There doesn't have to be an "explicit statement" in order for something to present a POV, which happens to be the point I've been trying to make for weeks now. Implications are important, and often difficult to see. Remember, you're the one (three comments up from here) who said that "not including the 'Christian holidays such as' would imply that these holidays apply to anyone and everyone." If what you say is true, that having "no explicit statement" makes a point invalid, then your point I quoted is therefore invalid. Powers 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't go off on a tangent

  • Please don't go into Saint Valentine's Day - not a public holiday and in my view not a Christian feast day. Note: "The Roman Catholic Calendar of Saints (known as the Roman Martyrology) was revised in 1969 and all of the Valentine's days were officially dropped." Protestant churches of course never honoured it.
Second : WP:NPA - this is about the article, not about anybody's faith or lack thereof - reviewing the conversation above, it is just getting a little heated - stick to the article! When in doubt don't refer to "your POV" or "your point" - drop the pronoun and refer to the point instead.
Third - I agree that sticking with "Spring Holiday" replacing the holidays "such as" Easter and Good Friday is what we should be on about - it is verifiable, subject to at least one court cases - interesting phenomenon and worth documenting in my view. I can manage the breakaway into the related phenomenon of Winter holiday. I though secularisation of Christmas had its own article though, so why don't we refer to that as the main article instead of rehashing the holiday tree? - agree it is a ghastly term but it has its own article - don't fork. --A Y Arktos\talk 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But why "such as"? And why specify "Christian"? Do you agree with my points above, where "such as" implies there are other Christian holidays that might be called "Spring Holiday", and that "Christian" implies that the reason for the replacement is related to the religion that celebrates the holidays? Powers 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree the qualification "such as" is superfluous - the argument to and fro has been that no other holidays have been renamed, eg Passover - my bad. Agree also that once Easter is specified, it does not need to be further qualified, it is Christian. That being said, the phenomenon, euphamism has not been applied to any non Christian holidays - that is what we were animatedly discussing before. I think it is because holidays associated with other religions have not been public holidays that some have been trying to grant to a secular public and at the same time attempting to not run foul of the perceived constitutional requirements of spearation of Chruch and State. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Separation of church and state

  • My two cents on Separation of church and state is that it refers to any religion, certainly in Australia - not just Christian sects though it was almost certainly conceived of that way in the first instance, but refers to "religion". The doctrine has of course constitutional and legal implications and thus is a driver for the Spring holiday phenomenon. In Australia we have interpreted the separation differently to elsewhere and as a result have Good Friday and Christmas Day as national public holidays - there appears to me to be little pressure on these or their naming. In the US they appear to not be national public holidays and as a result of the interpretation of the separation of church and state by the courts and by others looking at how to interpret that doctrine, we get the Spring holiday renaming phenomenon. --A Y Arktos\talk 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
refer (Separation_of_church_and_state#Countries_with_separation - perhaps worth drawing out to explain why Spring Holiday some places and not others--A Y Arktos\talk 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like your text got a bit scrambled there. Anyway, Christmas Day is a federal holiday in the US, one of ten and the only one normally associated with a specific religion. However, it's extremely common for non-Christians to celebrate it. Powers 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the jumbling up of ideas/ scrambling -italics indicate the sentence completion I had intended.
Christmas - As a US federal holiday, I assume it is in legislation, does the legislation name it as Chritmas?--A Y Arktos\talk 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That's why I think this article blows the phenomenon way out of proportion. All this is is a few governmental and non-governmental agencies -- all of them local in scope, as far as I can see -- putting "Winter Holiday" or "Spring Holiday" on a schedule in an attempt to make folks who don't celebrate the holidays normally not feel excluded. Misguided, perhaps, but it's really not a coherent movement. It's widespread but not pervasive. Powers 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
AYA, I'm not sure the extended reference to Christmas being a federal holiday is really needed in the opening paragraph. I'd move it myself but I'm not sure where else to put it. Still, the opening paragraph should focus on the basics, and I think the Code reference is too much detail. Powers 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(I can't keep up with thes indents) - I don't think the extended ref is necessary either - the ref is in the footnote - which could be improved if others see fit - I shall revert ot my earlier version. Sorry CiS.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The link to Federal holiday is important to me, there is no legal reason therefore for using a euphamism. The University of Tennessee (subject of a footnote) can't bring themselves to use the word Christmas but their holiday closing is over a number of days.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, simply stating it's a federal holiday doesn't explain that there's no legal reason for using a euphemism. If that's what you want to put in the article, put it there; don't make the reader guess. However, I still feel that it's too much information for the lede and should go in another section (perhaps "Usage"). Powers 10:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Christmas parts?

This subject is supposed to be about Spring holiday. Why is half the article dedicated to the secularization of Christmas, which has its own article? Krychek 14:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was designed to cover both the "Spring holiday" and "Winter holiday" euphemistic means, however a better title couldn't be agreed apon. In the opening statement, the term "winter holiday" is bolded, as being a secondary title to this article. A possible title could be Spring and winter holiday, but this seems an awkward title. You could propose a title change. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense for Winter Holiday to be the main article and have Spring Holiday redirect to that page? The Winter Holiday euphemism is far more widespread, and Christmas really does seem to be the focus of what's written here. This would make the whole thing seem far less POV to me, as Spring Holiday, which is barely a blip on the national radar if you do not have a personal stake in fighting the evils of secularization, would only be a footnote on that page. Krychek 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/r/Talk%7ESpring_Holiday_Archive_2_8806.html"