Talk:Spring Holiday/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Requested move

It's discussing both, so that should be the title. Voortle 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. The title "Spring and winter holidays" implies something other than what the article is about. I would agree with an alternate title, but this alternative is even worse than the current. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 03:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--A Y Arktos\talk 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Spring holiday and winter holiday with redirects from Spring holiday and Winter holiday. David Kernow 11:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to "spring holiday and winter holiday"

It's discussing both, so that should be the title. Voortle 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose - not sure what this laest contribution to the talk page (with the wrong time stamp) is trying to do but I still oppose--A Y Arktos\talk 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's discussing both "spring holiday" and "winter holiday", not just "spring holiday", so this title makes more sense. Voortle 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No need for the extra long title when not only does "Winter holiday" redirect here, but it is also explained decently in the introduction that this article is about both terms. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's odd to have an article that discusses both holiday seasons, at the name of one of the holiday seasons. But if you're concerned about longness, how about season holiday which is just as long as the current title and can include both holidays? Voortle 01:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about "holiday seasons". As far as I'm concerned there's only one "holiday" season, which can be explained at "Christmas season". As far as Spring having it's own "holiday season", that's original research, this article is just explaining the fact that the actual 2 terms "Winter holiday" and "Spring holiday" are replacing the exact terms "Christmas" and "Good Friday"/"Easter", respectively. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Winter holiday and Spring holiday are both holiday seasons. They're "politically correct" terms for "Christmas season" and "Easter season" or "Christmas" and "Easter". Voortle 01:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, those would be entitled "Winter holiday season" and "Spring holiday season". This article is not at all about a period surrounding Christmas or Easter, it is about the euphemistic means by which some specifically replace the words "Good Friday is on 25 March" or "Christmas Day is on 25 December" with "the Spring holiday is on 25 March" and "the Winter holiday is on 25 December". If you're looking for an article about the politically correct "winter holiday season" or "spring holiday season", there is yet to be articles on those subjects. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see it's not just me who has been confused about what you want this article to be about. This may be instructive. Powers 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - But then, I oppose the very existence of this article, which is not neutral at all in its current (or any previous) incarnation. The tone and content are unabashedly slanted against the use of the terms in question, and no attempt has been made to represent the "pro" camp in the controversy section. Whether it gets moved or not, it will read like exactly what it is: Thinly veiled fundamentalist Christian propaganda. Krychek 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Feel free to add the views of the "pro camp" - properly referenced. Please do not use language that could possibly be misconstrued as a personal attack - concentrate on the content not the contributers.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Good luck with that, though. There is precious little out there that references this controversy at all, and even less that comes down in favor of it. That's one reason I fear the article may be inherently POV. In my initial major rewrite, I included "supporting" and "neutral" arguments under the "Controversy" section, but I didn't have sources for them. CiS removed them, although he left the "against" arguments in (even though they are equally lacking in sources). Powers 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I am pretty certain that I can find sources for the "against" claims in the "Controversy" section, so I will get on that now, and if I cannot find any sources I will remove the statements. However I am finding it hard to see why LtPowers thinks support of these terms should be written in the "Controversy" section. Sections labeled controversy should only include a summarization of why the article subject is causing controversy, not why it is not causing any. I would perhaps suggest, LtPowers, that you create a section entitled "Support", or similar, and include the support for these terms at that section. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Citations added. I appreciate your concern that some support of these terms should be added to create a NPOV and balance effect, however I have yet to find any sources that show any support of these terms. You may say that this is because the issue at hand is so insignificant, but it is certainly notable enough to include on Wikipedia, certainly meeting the criteria for both WP:NOR and WP:V. Just because there are no sources to balance the issue does not mean it's a slanted POV, it just means that there is no verifiable support. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
            • "Controversy" means showing both sides. If everyone is in agreement that something is bad, there can't be any controversy, can there? Powers 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Obviously there are some who are in support of these terms, but I assume they are mostly restricted to marketing directors for major retailers, or city councilmen— seeing that so far all of our cites show that the general public is in disagreeance with this secular agenda. However, since you (nor I) can provide any sources showing any support of these terms (though there must be some, somewhere) we should not add any counter-balance until sources can be found, especially now that there are sufficient citations for the opposing view. I understand that you are perhaps frustrated with this, but I assure you that if there was any supporting citations I would add them—I'm not out to promote fundamentalist Christianity or their views...after all, I am not a Christian. If you find citations to support the usage of these terms, I still think there should be a seperate "Support" section...perhaps we can rid of the "Controversy" section and replace it with two "Support" and "Opposition" sections, if you find any support sources. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Inability to find sources is no excuse for a POV article, though. As for whether or not you're a Christian, I think thou dost protest too much. If anyone here implied that you were, I think such confusion would be understandable considering you believe in the divinity of Christ and have a declared interest in the so-called "oppression" of Christianity in the United States. However, I don't recall anyone mentioning it. Powers 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • You could say that I'm a Christian in the lightest sense of the word. I am interested in the history of the religion, the culture, and especially in Jesus. Yes, I do believe in his divinity but that belief fades in and out at times, and I also believe in NPOV at Wikipedia (please see my contributions for all the edits I have made in favor of NPOV but against Christian views[1][2][3]). All I'm saying is that some of my motives here are certainly in favor of Christianity, but I am not a fundamental whacko who is against gay civil unions or stem-cell research or whatnot; I share the same view of NPOV as you do. Also, you must admit that although this article is somewhat of a POV slant, it's not just some original research ramblings of a fundie Christian, it's supported facts. I agree that the inability to find sources is no excuse for a POV article, but what exactly is it that you propose to do? We cannot just eliminate all the "opposition" statements that are backed up by sources, and we certainly can't just delete this article. You are welcome to add "support" views, however if you cannot find any citations they will carry the {{fact}} tag — if all the "support" views are sourceless and the "opposition" side is packed with sources, it doesn't much help the situation of balance does it? Anyone reading the article could easily assume that the uncited works are false, and they very well could be as we would have no sources supporting them (as of now). — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not neutral?

  • There are citations have been added that support the renaming of the holidays is controversial and given there are citations that support that Easter has been renamed - a moving Spring holiday on a Friday that each year coincides with Good Friday. Could somebody please articulate then what is not neutral about this article? Gut reaction and personal attacks won't do - lack of neutrality needs to be articulated in neutral terms too.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What we have is an article on a phenomenon that may or may not be notable. It's obviously occurred, but the question is whether it's occurred on a widespread basis or not. It's been reported on, as evidenced by various links, but not even close to the same league as the "War on Christmas" (for example). So far, all we have in support of the practice is the raw fact that it continues to occur. The lack of sources in support of the practice is not an excuse for only presenting one side of the story. Furthermore, by having an article on this topic, we are lending legitimacy to what very well may be (and probably is, given the lack of unbiased discussion of the topic in the media) just an overreaction to a few relatively harmless instances of excessive political correctness. Some food for thought: User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. Powers 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you look at the earliest discussions on this article, you will see I was highly sceptical. From my perspective down under, the phenomenon is just weird and I think a google search of "April 14" and "Spring Holiday" indicates with 15,400 hits that the term is not just a few instances of excessive political correctness. I don't live in the US, I have no particular views, other than I think Good Friday should be called just that, and if people stsart calling it something else I find that interesting. I find it is in fact documenting political correctness, whether or not it is excessive political correctness I won't presume to judge. I do think it is a bit weird - either celebrate the christian holiday or don't celebrate it - don't give yourself another holiday and move it around according to a religious calendar, it seems hypocritical to me. This is just as useful an article as some random Pokemon card. It has been verified.

With respect to the two sides of the argument - I think those that believe the holiday should be renamed have in fact had their say by renaming the holiday. It is a pity that more can't be found on their rationale for doing so. “I am so sorry,” Councilman John Lanie said. “I want to show tolerance. (But) renaming the holidays is not the answer.” from currently note 12 gives some clues. There is also some hints in 1998: In the case BRIDENBAUGH vs. O'BANNON, the plaintiff claimed that an Indiana Good Friday "established a religious holiday as a state holiday and represents the state favoring one religion over another and over non-religion." The court disagreed, saying that the holiday served the secular purpose of giving state employees a day off work, and that the holiday had been sufficiently diluted of religious contents by having been referred to as the "spring" holiday. currently footnote 9. I cannot add the other side of the argument. This an instsance, not the only one, where the US is very foreign to us even though we speak the same language (more or less). Similarly I could not sensibly discuss the imposition of the death penalty in the US - we don't impose that penalty here and abhor it. If somebody wants to add in the justification for the practice do so, but don't expect a foreigner to do it. My role in this argument is to see that the article continues to include only reliable and reputable sources and thus continues to justify its inclusion on the grounds of Verifiability. My initial reaction to the article was disbelief - I have been convinced by the citation of sources to date.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

None of that really addresses my main argument, though. 15,000 hits is reasonably impressive (although dwarfed by the 600,000 for "April 14" and "Good Friday" and 1,500,000 for "April 14" and "Easter") but the problem is that they're almost all examples of the practice, not discussion of the practice. That's why I think the controversy is largely manufactured. There are a few people out there objecting to it, but what they have to say is usually just an extension of the War on Christmas arguments. If there was a true debate about this going on, we'd have readily available arguments on both sides. We don't. Instead, what we have is an article that says "Here's what 'Spring Holiday' means, and here's why some people think it's a really bad idea to use it." Isn't it obvious how one-sided that is? Powers 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Per my above response, LtPowers, what is it exactly that you suggest we do to improve the NPOV of this article? I don't think we've heard any suggestions from you as of yet. We can't just remove the sources for "opposition", and we can't delete the article (you could try, but I doubt it would pass because this article meets WP:V and WP:NOR. Though it doesn't entirely meet WP:NPOV, that's not criteria for deletion). If you want to showcase the "support" section more clearly, please feel free to make some additions and alterations. I find sources for whatever I can; I'm making sure we're meeting the WP:V and WP:NOR standards. It's not entirely up to me to ensure complete balance here, after all, AYArktos and yourself also bear that responsibility...So what do you suggest?. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. My preference would probably be to just redirect it to Easter or Good Friday and include a brief note on that article that some people call it "Spring Holiday" for whatever reason, and that other people see doing so as part of the Secularization of Christian holidays. Short of that, it clearly needs to present arguments for why people are doing this renaming. Now, I know we've all looked, and we haven't found any yet. But until we do, that NPOV tag needs to remain. It can't be that there aren't any to find, since you've documented that the renaming is occurring. There have to be reasons, and until those reasons are presented, the article is unbalanced. Powers 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of things to note: The WP:V page itself says, "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it." Furthermore, perhaps we need to direct our attention to What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). I'm not sure why I was scolded for calling this article propaganda, because that's exactly what I think it is, and I was criticizing the content, not attacking any specific person here. In order not to be propaganda, according to WWIN, the article has to have a neutral point of view, which both sides have agreed it does not. Krychek 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the NPOV tag at the top of this article is sufficient enough to solve that issue, because there is certainly "an attempt to write in the NPOV" (from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), and there are many other articles with NPOV disputes. This article is notable, verifiable, and is written with NPOV language, but the issue itself is lenient toward one side because many detest the issue. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The NPOV tag absolutely does not solve anything. The purpose of the tag is to flag an article in the hopes that it will be corrected and made NPOV, not simply to warn readers that this is a slanted article that will be left slanted in perpetuity. If you agree that it cannot be made NPOV, then there is a serious problem with the entire basis of the article. Krychek 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps scrolling down this page a little further before responding 6 days late to a message would have been more productive. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some of us actually take time off for holidays instead of stewing about what people call those days. My comment was a response to the one above it, and that is why I placed it where I did. I find it interesting that you attack my timing rather than my argument. Krychek 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is my view that the reasons for renaming are there - particularly the ref ot the Indiana case. What more are you looking for?--A Y Arktos\talk 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Entire Rewrite / Merge --- is this the Answer?

After long consideration of the POV debate and status of this article and the relevent Secularization of Christmas article, I am considering that we discuss the possibility of merging these two articles into one, with a self-explanatory title such as "Controversy over the public celebration of Christian holidays". I don't think Secularization of Christian holidays is a sufficiant title for this material, because "secularization of Christmas" is the same as "commercialization of Christmas", which doesn't refer to the censorship of Christmas/Easter celebrations or the renaming of them, but rather refers to the enhanced focus on secular aspects of these holidays as opposed to Jesus. I think there should be a seperate article entitled Commercialization of Christmas that refers to those alternate aspects. So, although I stand defensive of the content of Spring holiday, I really don't think the current title, "Spring holiday" is sufficient in explaining the contents of the page and it throws people off. This is why many people think this article explains the "holiday season" or other kinds of material, not the specific replacement of "Christmas Day" with "Winter holiday" and of "Good Friday" with "Spring holiday". This would be better explained under a section heading at a much larger–scoped article that includes the content of Secularization of Christmas. The whole presentation of the current article also gives the appearance of Christian POV.

A major issue here, however, is the responsibility of rewriting the entirely of this article and the Secularization of Christmas article with an acceptable presentation. I will take the liberty of beginning a merge rewrite (as I did for my newly created Christmastime greetings article) on my computer, and show it here on the talk page for comment. But if the majority of you (including the main commentators LtPowers and AYArktos) disagree with the merge/rewrite concept, I will hold from beginning my rewrite version. I encourage anyone else to also come up with some designs and ideas for a layout. I strongly believe that this article's important and sourced information needs to be seen, but not under the current context of this article, which does present a POV slant. We need to make a rewrite that explains in the introduction exactly what this whole situation is in regards to, and how it is in no way propaganda or an attempt at presenting a one-sided argument.

The ironic thing is that over at Secularization of Christmas, there seems to be a POV slant the other way, in favor of secularity. Therefore, this rewrite could eliminate the biases and POV of both articles in one stride. Also, since Secularization of Christmas also talks about mere commercialization of Christmas, an article regarding commercialization will need to be created, and referral to commercialization will need to be weeded out of the fresh new "Controversy over the public celebration of Christian holidays" article. Anyone with suggestions on titles or with comments against or in support of this request are encouraged to comment below, thank you. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with the current article. I am more than happy to review a rewrite - good luck with it :-) Secularisation of Easter is significant here in Australia - we just don't rename it! Hot cross buns were on sale 3 January this year - I can probably produce a citation. For a draft you can put it on a temp page or on a user page eg User:CrazyInSane/sandbox/Controversy over the public celebration of Christian holidays--A Y Arktos\talk 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I welcome a non-slanted article, and the title is a good place to start even if the contents doesn't need to change much. I prefer to see Christmas as an evolving holiday, which started off as pagan. Different Christians celebrate Christmas Day on different days and in different ways. It might also be worth mentioning that in Japan (which has very few Christians) there is a huge celebration around the New Year, which is similar to a secular Christmas holiday. Remember also that in the southern hemisphere, Easter is in Autumn not Spring. Stephen B Streater 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
My proposed title would be shorter. Perhaps something like Religious influence on vacations - holiday is originally from holy day I believe. Stephen B Streater 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your proposed title. It seems very biased in favor of secularism, as the "religious influence" actually came before the "vacations"—and I'm not sure what you mean by vacations. The etymology of "holiday" is irrelevent as it is used generically, and I can see your view may be a bit biased against Christianity. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. I didn't know that there were no vacations before religion. I do come from a position of non-Christianity, as do most people in the world. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The title makes no sense. We are addressing the secularization and censorship of the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas, how is this anything to do with Religious influence on vacations? Secular influence on religious holidays might be more fitting. And as for your non-Christian views, I didn't say it was negative but we need to have balance in order to create a NPOV article, and your proposed title is, IMO, secularly biased. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the NPOV objective. I was just throwing some ideas into the pot to get some more angles on it. I thought the issue was that holidays at Christmas and Easter were being secularised, not that the religious holidays were being secularised. Secular people take holidays to coincide with the religious holidays. Also I use the word holiday to refer to secular vacations, not being politically correct. Stephen B Streater 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea and/or concept. I'll have some more defined ideas later, just adding this note to let you know I've seen it and think it's a good path toward resolving the issues here. (Been gone this weekend, but thanks for the notification, CiS.) When considering a new title, do remember that "holiday" in the UK, Australia, etc. can mean the same as "vacation" in the US, in addition to the meaning of the US "holiday". Powers 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be an article on Spring and Winter holidays, because peoples around the world celebrate the seasons and changes of seasons. But it is simply POV pushing to say that "Spring holiday" is a substitute for Easter Holiday. This privileges Easter - as if people can't want to enjoy the Spring for reasons that have nothing to do with Easter - and is thus inherently violating NPOV. This article should not be on the secularization of anything, which assumes people start out from a religious point of view (no, they don't. People start out naked and bloody and drooling and don't understand anything except sucking and breathing). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No move

Ok, clear, no consensus to move. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Either that or no one (including the main commentators) care about the article anymore. I will not waste my time on a rewrite unless they are willing to participate slightly more. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I said "I don't have a problem with the current article. I am more than happy to review a rewrite" - but not sure what other participation you are looking for.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Powers 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well if you both don't have a problem with the current article, then is there any sense for me to write a merge of the two articles? I'd like to know this before I start, thank you. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I was careless. I agree with AYArktos in regards to being happy to review a rewrite and being not sure what other participation you're looking for. Powers 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Holiday or vacation and Public Holidays - plus Long weekends

Hi I confirm Powers' observation that in Commonwealth English "holiday" = "vacation"; we can translate "vacation" but it would not be our more common usage - we take school holidays, go on holidays from work at any old time, ...

"Public Holidays" are something different - thus "holiday" doesn't = "Public Holiday"; "Public Holiday" can equal "Long weekend". Public holidays in Australia include Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day, Australia Day, ANZAC day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday (in lieu of Easter Sunday for those who work Monday to Friday and as well as Easter Sunday for those who work week-ends)[4]; the official but not actual Queen's Birthday (in June). Each state celebrates Labour Day but on different days. There is always a locality based public holiday - eg Canberra Day (founding of Canberra); Melbourne Cup Day and Albury Gold Cup (horse races); Regatta Day (Hobart); etc. I think we get 12 public holidays a year.

Australia is sometimes referred to as Land of the Long Weekend.[5] [6] [7]

If Christmas,Boxing Day, New Years Day, ANZAC Day fall on weekends, then the public holiday falls on the weekdays after, but the shops will close of course on the actual day. There used to be a tendency to move some days to align with the Monday and make it a long weekend. In recent ears there has been significant push-back - ANZAC day is now celebrated on the 25th and that will be the public holiday with a Monday long weekend only if the 25th wwas a Monday, or a Satuday or Sunday.

I think this shift against moving say ANZAC Day to make a long week-end is a significant shift but not sure if I can document the zeitgeist (spirit of the time) with references. I will have a look. To me it is germane to this article in a broad sense - ie how do people feel about holidays - governments and public commentary. --A Y Arktos\talk 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • In the article on Australia Day, it is noted that: In 1946 the Commonwealth and State governments finally agreed to unify the celebrations on January 26 as 'Australia Day', although the public holiday was instead taken on the Monday closest to January 26. Finally, since 1994 all states and territories have taken the Australia Day public holiday on January 26. - not sure why there is so much finality about it but ... (I have since edited). There is definitely a shift to better respect for public hildays here in Australia - still the day off, but less long weekend and more observation of whatever event. That seems to run counter to the trend of renaming Easter as Spring Holiday documented here. Not sure whether this is merely a national difference and whether even observing such a difference wouldn't be Original research--A Y Arktos\talk 01:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Spring break

I think people sometimes use holiday as a synonym for vacation, but never use vacation for hiliday. I suggest renaming this article "Spring vacation" and rewrite it to focus on the current existence in certain countries and certain occupations (especially universities) to allow for or promote Spring vacation. Within this context we can report that these vacations are sometimes timed to coincide with religious holidays, and sometimes are not. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what AYArktos and CiS want this article to be about. They want it to be about renaming "Good Friday" to "Spring Holiday" in such things as official holiday schedules and academic calendars in the United States and Canada. Powers 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is already an article on Spring break. I confirm that this article as it stands is about the renaming of a religious holiday while still following the date that holiday is observed. As the date changes each year, the phenomenon is observable and verifiable. To my foreigner's eyes it is weird - either have a religious holiday or don't - don't pretend you are not having it by renaming it with a secular term - but that is my two cents. I wouldn't have written the article, but I do support it being kept. If it went to a generalisation it would be about the secularisation of holidays. I proposed such a merger and that proposal was rejected.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support it being kept. As it is, the current name is deceptive. If we want an article about renaming holidays, we should create an article saying so. However, I think that is a stupid idea - there are many holidays with long histories. I suggest that for each holiday (e.g. Passover, Christmas) there be a section history that covers changes in its name or functioning. This seems the most encyclopedic way to convey valid information rather than a deceptive page. In short, I agree that the content is valid, but only in t sproper context, which is the history of any given holiday. Slrubenstein | Talk

  • I completely agree with Slrubenstein. Krychek 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this article should be merged back into "the history of any given holiday" - not least becausr both the Christmas and Easter articles are substantial. I see no difficulty with a fork.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The difficulty, apparently, is that the topic of the article is not clear at all. So far only a few people have grasped it, and that only after significant explanation. Powers 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AYArktos writes, "I confirm that this article as it stands is about the renaming of a religious holiday while still following the date that holiday is observed. As the date changes each year, the phenomenon is observable and verifiable." First you are violating NOR. Verfiability refers to a verifiable source and we editors co not count. You say that "Spring holiday" refers to a specific day which I find quite surprising since Easter is on a Sunday, already a day off for most people. In my expereince, Spring holiday refers never to a specific day but to a period of a week or two weeks. You say it doesn't. Okay, what is your source. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much every source in the article refers to a "Spring Holiday" day-off (usually coincident with Good Friday). What else are you looking for? Powers 20:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of these sources seem to be primary and thus violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

References 2-7, 10, and 12 are indeed primary sources. However, those references are not being used to discuss the phenomenon; they are simply pointed out as examples. I believe that is allowed under WP:NOR. The actual discussion of the phenomenon comes from the other references (1, 8, 9, 11, and 13), which are secondary sources. Powers 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Creator's absence

  • I am leaving Wikipedia for an undetermined amount of time and thus will no longer comment with my support of this article's content. AYArktos, I hope you can continue to defend this article in my absence, and LtPowers I appreciate your contributions as well. Good luck with the article and I hope everyone can figure out a reasonable compromise. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope your wikibreak is not precipitated by ongoing conflicts in articles you edit, such as this one, and that your return is speedy and enthusiastic. =) Powers 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how "the renaming of a religious holiday while still following the date that holiday is observed" is not a topic that belongs on the page for the particular holiday in question, or why it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. User:Slrubenstein


Reasons to keep the article:

  • Holidays are in fact renamed, for whatever reason.
  • There have been news articles about this happening.
  • There has been some outcry against the practice, which is also verifiable.

Reasons not to keep the article:

  • The phenomenon is not widespread enough to warrant inclusion.
  • This is especially true of the Spring holiday, which is the title and focus of this article. Even Bill O'Reilly admits that there is no "War on Easter."
  • There is no actual controversy, as this word would imply a two-sided argument. The preponderance of the arguments and articles have come from the religious sector, claiming a "war" that cannot be verified to exist.
  • There is no way to make this article NPOV, as its existence presupposes (and spuriously supports the notion) that there IS a secular conspiracy against these holidays.
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Krychek 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the reasons for keeping the article, above: (1) that holidays are renamed only means that this should be discussed in the article on a given holiday, in a section on the name of the holiday or its history. (2) that there are news articles is reason for this to be presented on the page covering current events/news, not an article (3) that there has been outcry against the practice is never a reason for an article, this is just POV forking. It IS a reason to provide multiple points of view in the article on Christmas, in the article on Easter, and so on. user:Slrubenstein
I'm with you 100%, and if the article's supporters can come up with more reasons than what I've listed, I invite them to add to the list. (Feel free to add bullets, just sign your point with tildes as you add it, I guess.) Otherwise, it seems obvious what we need to do here. Krychek 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to discussion abt keeping this article or merging with Easter

  • The holiday is a religious not a seasonal holiday. The rename is seasonal and obviously does not apply all over the world (I am Australian and Easter is not spring time!). I do not regard it as a POV fork, nor do I regard it as a secular conspiracy. I suspect (not my country so I do not understand necessarily) that it is an attempt to grant a holiday while circumventing the interpretation of the constitutional requirements for the separation of Church and State. Australia also has constitutional requirements for separation of church and state (as do many other countries) but that does not prevent Easter being a federal public holiday here - it seems to in the US; there is a ref in the article to this circumvention. News articles refer to very current events - the sources for this article date from a number of years. The article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you are proposing a merger, do so formally. It is my feeling that this is not a useful addition to the Easter article for an international encyclopaedia, it is however, of sufficient verifiability to merit an article. --A Y Arktos\talk 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The holiday is seasonal and not religious. Most people in the US who say spring holidays couldn´t give a damn about Easter. It appears to be a name change only from the POV of Christians who want everyone else to say Happy Easter. user:Slrubenstein
  • If as you say the holiday is not religious, why does it change date every year to align with the irregular Christian clendar? Why isn't 1 May, I April, 21 April, or nearest weekend to some other fixed date celebrated? Seasonal holidays do not normally vary by over 1 month.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We move it to correspond with the religious observance, mainly out of tradition and for the benefit of Christmas-and-Easter Christians. Powers 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Quite, it also happens to align with a holiday spent in many many countries around the world, not all of whom are celebrating spring but who are celebrating Easter. This article is about the renaming of that holiday in one country - one cannot comment on the absence of renaming elsewhere, becuause there are no reliable sources to say that the holiday is not renamed spring holiday in other countries - very hard to find sources about something that isn't happening. If you wish the article to assert "most people in the US who say Spring holidays couldn't give a damn about Easter", which seems a truism, perhaps there could be some discussion about what proportion of the population that represents, compared with Christians, many Christians being indeed "Christmas-and-Easter Christians" but Christians none the less. The US, from an outsider's perspective, looks more Christian than some other countries because of the overt church-going of its presidents (or at least overtly reported church-going). The difference between weekly church-going in Australia and the US is quite marked by relatives and friends who have lived in both countries.
The article Religion in the United States, has that some 80% of the Unites States population describes themselves as Christian. The lead paragraph states: Religion is a significant part of the culture of the United States. The United States is one of the most religious developed nations in the world. According to a 44-nation survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, religion is more important to people in the US than to those in other industrialized nations, second to only Ireland. Gallup International indicates that 41% (2001) of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services, compared to 15% of French citizens, 7% of UK citizens, and 25% of Israeli citizens. The article then goes on to throw some doubt on the church going stats, however, even the revised stats indicate significantly greater church-going than other countries. The French by comparison, notwithstanding a lack of church-going, do not celebrate spring in random dates around March and April, they celebrate Easter even though as per Culture_of_France#Religion The French maintain a strong gap between civilian life and religion. Religion is considered as private as possible ... and France guarantees freedom of religion as a constitutional right. In France there are 5 Christian holidays of the 10 national public holidays.
If 80% of US citizens declare themselves Christians, why is the holiday renamed? The article tries to answer the question as to why with several points:
  • reference to the Indiana court judgment
  • many people believe they are being used to avoid recognition of, or to secularize, religious holidays[citation provided]. Others suggest that the terms are being used in an attempt include non-Christians who may not celebrate the holidays in question[citation needed].
  • Another factor in using generic terms only for Christmas and Easter is that they are the only religious holidays that are also widely celebrated as secular holidays.
That the holiday is renamed is verifiable. Seems not to be only on-off instances but a significant number. If the questions is why, then some editors have done their best to explain, but for those who want more, I suggest {{sofixit}}, but don't delete or merge, the phenomenon is more frequent than Evoloterra and several others listed at Holiday#Unofficial_holidays and moreover has been verified by reliable sources.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Very well. In the spirit of {{sofixit}}, and with your example of Evoloterra in mind, I will do a rewrite of my own. But I warn you now, I'm cutting everything to do with Christmas, since that has been covered elsewhere. Krychek 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, CrazyInSane, but I will certainly express my irritation at having my rewrite reverted as vandalism with no comment on the Talk page by you or anyone else. Welcome back from your Wikibreak, I guess.

Anyone who wants to read my version is welcome to find it the history, and if it's found acceptable, possibly even un-revert it. Krychek 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't necessarily see the abbreviation "rv" as "revert vandal", often as not it just means "revert" - when in doubt, everybody should assume assume good faith. I didn't think the revisions lost anything and of course always useful to remind ourselves of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I think secularisation of Christmas is done adequately elsewhere in the Wikipedia, and a see also link to Secularisation of Christmas is adequate. If necessary, a brief mention of the related phenomenon of "winter Holiday" more than covers it off. I propose to revert to Krychek's version. I don't think it was excessively bold. I will assume CiS hadn't had a chance to catch up with the talkpage discussion first and thus did not realise that a proposal to revise had 1st been raised here.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All those tags

Removed the Winter holiday redirect tag since someone now has that page redirecting to Secularization of Christmas. I propose that someone please remove the Confusing and/or POV tags if you feel it is time to do so. Krychek 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Winter Holiday still redirects to this article. I put the tag back until such time as we can get those redirects straightened out. Powers 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One of us must be experiencing a cached version, because I see Secularization of Christmas when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_holiday?redirect=no Krychek 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note the capitalization. Powers 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did that, and it redirects to the book, still not to here. Seems like there's a lot of fixing to do. Krychek 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbelina (talk • contribs) fixed it today. My apologies. =) Powers 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll for removal of tags

I suggest a straw poll to determine whether or not there is concensus to remove neutrality and/or confusing tags? (see Wikipedia:Straw polls).

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 and confusing tags
  • Remove neutrality tag only
  • Remove confusing tag only
    • Powers 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Krychek 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both tags for time being
  • Discussion
    • The confusion tag can go; the article seems clear enough for what it is. But it still only presents the anti-usage angle. The only reference to why this term is in use is in the lead, and that doesn't even have a source. Powers 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

request for source

"Sometimes, "spring" or just "holiday" will replace Easter with combinations such as "The Spring Bunny" and "Spring Eggs."" - verifiable source, please? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It is not usual to provide sources to the lead introductory sentence. There are plenty of sources throughout the article that supports the lead, including a link to this url: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406 which states "Already, many stores and malls across the U.S. are preparing for seasonal events, with some refraining from usage of terms like "the Easter Bunny," opting instead for more generic terms like "Spring Bunny," or other names avoiding the name "Easter.""--A Y Arktos\talk 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Do I understand correctly that this article is about the use of the phrase "spring holiday" to refer to Easter or Good Friday? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The very first sentence indeed says Spring holiday is a generic term sometimes used in place of Easter or Good Friday. I think you have it :-)--A Y Arktos\talk 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So it is really about Easter and Good friday? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? Of course it is, given AYArktos' response and the introductory sentence in this article. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let AYArktos speak for himself herself. I want to know if he she agrees. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not trying to trap AYArktos linguistically, are you? Powers 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As already stated above, this is about the renaming of Easter and Good Friday with secular terms and granting a holiday on those days, a moveable holiday. If I wanted to grant a "Spring Holiday" to my employees and avoid Christian festivals for whatever reason, I would pick 21 April, 1 May or some other fixed date (possibly the nearest weekend) referencing Spring (In Australia of course it would be 1 August, 1 September, 21 September or some such). I wouldn't take a moving religious festival and attach a secular name to it. Most countries don't. They do grant the holiday - Good Friday is a public holiday in Australia. This is despite constitutional separation of church and state and a lower proportion of citizens who declare themselves Christians than some other countries. In Australia, Good Friday, along with Christmas Day and the morning (til 1pm) of ANZAC Day is one of the very few days when museums, rubbish tips and major supermarkets are closed.
I am not interested in games - if you have a proposal about the article, be upfront. Else perhaps you need to move on. Article talk pages are about discussing articles, not engaging in debate with specific editors. If I didn't agree with the points being made on a talk page, I will chime in, else I might be interested in engaging in other discussions (or even editing) elsewhere and leaving this or any other particular discussion at any time. I think user:CrazyInSane's question is legitimate - what is your point? --A Y Arktos\talk 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is about Easter and the name of Easter (or, in AYArktos's words, "the renaming of Easter and Good Friday with secular terms") I have incorporated this material into the Easter article. I have not changed any words, nor have I deleted anything. All of the current text and the see alsos and references are now all in the Easter article, as this is a topic concerning Easter. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Please review WP:Bold. Slrubenstein's edit was premature and inappropriate without foreshadowing it and allowing some discussion. Specifically note the suggestion: If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial. The matter should have been referred to Wikipedia:Requested moves as it was likely to controversial or nominnated for merger in accordance with Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages - where it specifically states If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages. After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would this be controversial? Absolutely no content was deleted. Moreover, both you and Crazy agree that "Spring Holiday" really refers to the Easter holiday. Obviously this is a sub-topic of Easter. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be naive, you knew it would be controversial, hence your not so disingenuous comments above. I am afraid that on this occasion, given the previous dialogue, I waive assuming good faith. Why didn't you ask whether or not we agreed with yor idea? There are plenty of guidelines as to how the merger would have been correctly gone about.--A Y Arktos\talk 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I followed the guidelines, which state clearly that one shoulod be bold and merge when appropriate. Nor am I being naive. I confirmed that two major authors felt this article was about a name change to Easter (and not about any of the other Spring holidays that have nothing to do with Easter). So I did not and still do not see how a merger with Easter could be controversial. It seems to me that we either rewrite this article so that it is about all sorts of Spring breaks and holidays common in the US and UK, many of which are not about Easter, or we keep the content as about a new name for Easter. If we opt for the second, which is what I thought you and Crazy wanted, then this belongs as a section in the Easter article. I see no need for debate: both of you say Spring Holiday is a new name for Easter, so I put it in with the Easter article. What is the controversy? I repeat: I did not delete or change a single word. Now, instead of telling me repeatedly that I have done something you don't like, why don't you stick to the issue in point: what are your objections to redirecting this to Easter and incorporating all of the contents as a section in the Easter article? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the article, if left in its current form, would be more appropriate as a section within the Easter article. Moreover, I don't see much of a controversy. What I do see is a couple of editors picking and choosing which Wiki guidelines they will follow in their attempts to keep a blatantly POV article alive and separate. Sorry to make this personal, but when I see people "working" the rules, I have to call them on it. Seems like we never really get more than five votes on any proposed fix for this ridiculous article -- is there no higher power to appeal to at this point? Krychek 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatantly POV article? How is it POV to present a factual summarization of events with verifiable citations? There may be a few small sentences/words with unbalanced POV, but every article has this and I'm not stopping you from making small changes. This article meets WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and shouldn't present any problems unless you simply oppose its contents. There seems to be a sort of "explosion of emotions" when it comes to PC–related subjects, and I think that's why there's strongly-opinionated opposition here. Are any of you questioning whether its true that many states recognize "Spring holiday" for Good Friday and that state-sponsored events and public malls have "Spring Bunnies"? If so, check the citations please. What is the specific problem with this article anyway? IMO, I think the sneaky merge to Easter was just an attempt at making this information less available and findable by the general public. Merging to Easter is not a good idea because we'd then need to merge it to Good Friday as well, and the contents of this article are just too long to consider a merge. Also, consider that the Secularization of Christmas article is separate from Christmas. But if Slrubenstein still wants a merge he should request it and then a voting process will ensue. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, it's not about the verifiability of specific events. It's about implying widespread controversy and/or conspiracy where none exists, in an attempt to falsely martyrize Christianity. This is a combination of religious bias and sensationalism, both of which are specifically mentioned in WP:NPOV. Just because you found a couple of isolated articles about it does not make this a noteworthy phenomenon. Also, if this is akin to Secularization of Christmas, why isn't it titled Secularization of Easter? Perhaps because you want it to be more "findable"? Krychek 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There were several attempts to move this article to a separate title, one in which I offered my assistance in completely rewriting this article and moving it to merge with Secularization of Christmas to form Secularization of Christian holidays or a similar title, but I didn't receive enough support IMO to start a rewrite. I agree that the title for this article is not fitting, but again you can request for a retitling if you wish. As for your claim of this event being isolated, there are over 10 citations provided here, much, much more than many surviving articles—and the citations verify that the phenomenon is present in many different venues. What makes this article any less notable than the Secularization of Christmas? Although perhaps this phenomenon is only in its early stages as compared to Secularization of Christmas, its showing the same properties of the Christmas phenomenon, and is increasing in popularity. Also, in no way does the wording of this article in any way "imply widespread controversy and/or conspiracy where none exists"; it is made clear that this phenomenon is limited to the United States and periodically Canada, and the facts are presented neutrally. If you wanted it to say "This event is very very limited and in no way is widespread and nobody notices it", that would be adding an imbalance of neutrality, as the article is presented as neutrally as can be right now. We have no evidence for or against whether this phenomenon is any more widespread than our findings could verify. We simply know that it is occurring in various places, in all sorts of venues including public schools, malls, government municipalities, etc. (as noted in the article). How could we approach this any more neutrally than is now without presenting an opposing bias?. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a clearly set out procedure for how to merge articles involving tagging and seeking conscensus. No concensus was sought for the merger. I did not say the article was about Easter, I said it was about the renaming of Easter (in predominantly one country). That country's quirks regarding a major christian festival do not merit its own section in the main article. Believe it or not there are other countries in the world who manage to celebrate Easter and manage to do so in a constitutional framework of the separation of church and state. This article also does not deserve to be merged into the article on separation, though it more rightly belongs there. Given this article has already been the subject of an RfC and a separate merger proposal before, your actions were excessively bold as witnessed by the fact that they misfired. Did you really think you had sought concensus when three preople asked in effect what was your point above? Please go away and be provocative somewhere else, you seem to have nothing useful to add here. Otherwise please review and follow the various wikipedia guidelines in your future actions in regards to this article; when it comes to merging they are pretty unambiguous and I have followed them in very much less controversial topics than this one.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to state your reasons for opposing a merger. Your only reason seems to be, "That country's quirks regarding a major christian festival do not merit its own section in the main article." If this reason explains why the topic does not merit being part of an article, then clearly it explains why it does not merit an entire article.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
One reason to oppose the merger is that the content would have to be duplicated to both Easter and Good Friday. This is not a strict barrier, of course, but it is supportive of having a separate article. Another reason would be giving undue prominence to the phenomenon by including the full text in those articles; it's much more suited to a "see also" link to a separate article. All that said, however, I agree with Krychek that the article seems to be inherently POV, but I also agree with CiS that it presents the facts as neutrally as possible. That may be a contradictory position to take, but there it is. Powers 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
A separate article gives more prominence to a topic than a section of a larger article. If putting this material in the Easter article (and I do not think we would have to duplicate in the Good Friday article, a link would suffice) gives it "undue" prominence, then giving it its own article really gives it undue prominence. LtPowers, if you really feel this way then the article should just be deleted as too trivial. I however would be satisfied with making it a section in the Easter article, preserving the contents but putting it in its proper place. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. What more can I say? By including something in the main article, we're saying "This is important enough to be mentioned here, in detail." By including a link, we're saying "This is related to the main topic, but is optional reading for those interested." That's my reasoning. Powers 16:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Easter article is already more than 40 k long, greater than the recommended 30 k. As already observed it is a festival of worldwide importance and the renaming of it by a minority group in one or two countries does not merit expanding the article by 20% (which was what your merger did). There is no reason for this article to be deleted. It is verifiable information and at least of as much significance as many of the pokemon cards that have thier own articles. Verifiability is the criteria for inclusion, unless notability is specifically mentioned in a guideline as is the case of biographies and companies. --A Y Arktos\talk 10:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Then include all the examples of "Spring holiday" that do not have to do with Easter, for balance. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am actually really really really bored of your chat here. User:Slrubenstein has nothing useful to contribute and is disrupting this talk page for some obscure point. There is no need to include examples of a spring holiday for balance - for example Wattle Day or the running of the Melbourne Cup on the 1st Tuesday of November either. Both are Spring holidays but not ever called "Spring holiday" - similarly May Day is bnot called "Spring Holiday" even though it is in Spring for the northern hemisphere and is a holiday for many. There is a phenomenon in the US of taking a public holiday that happens to coincide with Good Friday. It is documented. It has been the subject of court cases, which say what a good idea it is to rename Easter/Good Friday as Spring Holiday because then you can take a Christian hoiliday but not be a Christian - why you either don't want to keep quiet or profess your Christianity is something that is quite foreign to me but verifiable and it gets its own article along those with the Jennifer Willbanks and many other "only in America" phenomena. It does not need to be merged within the Good Friday article. Christianity and thus Good Friday happens to be something many many more people than one nation are interested in and has been pointed out on this page more than once before, this happens to be an international encyclopaedia. I see no problem with the fork. If you wish to propose a merger or deletion or some other fate for the article, seek concensus by the proper forms - else go and bother other editors somewhere else. This is your last warning, I am feeling quite crabby and I think you are disrupting this talk page to make a Point - not a discussion I am willing to respond to any longer. Find something new and interesting to say. Note this article has already been subject to merger proposals and an RfC - might have been before your time but you are exhausting the community's patience by ignoring previous discussions - and yes I am prepared to take your conduct to an RfC - I am feeling that crabby! --A Y Arktos\talk 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/r/Talk%7ESpring_Holiday_Archive_3_0470.html"