Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Christmas December 25 discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Raul's opinion

Raul has finished deciding the dates for these articles, see his rationale at: Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Omnipotence paradox discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 14:26

[edit] Votes

(removed by Raul654 on 28 November 2005; archived by ALoan on 4 December 2005)

Strongly agree. I was one of several editors who worked hard to get this article up to speed by last Christmas, and was disappointed when it made "feature" but was not front-paged on 12/25. FWIW, my vote is for cultural, not religious, reasons. Sfahey 00:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with this being frontpaged on Dec 25th, but strongly disagree with the use of the term "Ásatrú" in the summary. The Germanic Neopaganism article, to which that redirects, says that "use of Ásatrú for Germanic paganism preceding 19th century revivalist movements is ... an anachronism. Likewise, use of Ásatrú as a synonym of Germanic Neopaganism, while widespread in the USA, can be misleading." So it's not only a term that most readers of this international encyclopedia won't know, but the article it links to says it's inaccurate too!
Since "holiday" can also be considered a bit odd outside a Christian context, maybe change "Ásatrú pagan midwinter holiday" to something like "pagan midwinter feast"? — Haeleth Talk 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Haeleth. The above summary was always only an initial suggestion, and I welcome any ideas to improve it. Brisvegas 09:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree. What could be better? I mean, who would go to Wikipedia December 25 and not wonder about it? I think it would be very interesting because there are a lot of things one wonders about during these holidays. Nicholasink 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Christmas will already be listed on the main page under the "Holidays" section. Raul654 is usually against listing the same item in two spots on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-27 07:06
  • Also, if the article was feautred on 12/25/2005, it wouldn't be able to be featured again until at least 2007 or later, probably; so it doesn't make much sense to say that people will be expecting it to be there on 12/25, since it can not always be there on every December 25th. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 01:20
Strongly agree — Wackymacs 08:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree Leithp (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. It will already be under holidays that day. Also, I hear Raul is against this sort of thing. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong disagree, as per AngryParsley. It will be on the page twice, taking up excess space. It's not like the article will be able to be featured on Christmas next year, since we have more than 365 featured articles. Pick any other day and that'll be fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:47
Strong support. Remove it from holidays on that day, and while you're at it remove Rosa Parks from "selected anniversaries" on December 1, allowing us to bring up a different event that is probably neglected but very important and fascinating anyway. Not having Christmas featured on Christmas would be throwing away a golden opportunity to generate a lot of new interest in Wikipedia among people visiting the website on that day, as the synchronity will be interesting enoug to catch people's attentions immediately. Logical paradoxes are one of my favorite subjects in the world, but I see absolutely no reason that the "omnipotence paradox" can't be featured on any other day, and leave this article to be featured on a beautifully suitable day. :) I'd say the same thing about any opportunity to add some amusing and unique flair and synchronity to Wikipedia's main page for a day. -Silence 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You're saying Christmas should not be listed under the "Holidays" section??? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 09:09
  • I'm going to agree with Brian0918 here and say, "wtfmate?" Featuring Christmas on Christmas doesn't make much sense, especially since it already will have front page space. It's silly to unlist it from the list of holidays. Also, making it the front page article that day is unusual and much too unoriginal for wikipedia. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Featured articles and front page selected anniversaries should not overlap, and Christmas obviously belongs in the latter on December 25th. Schaefer 09:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is far from an absolute rule. Exceptions can be made: see Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December_1, which previously had Rosa Parks' famous civil disobedience act from 50 years earlier, but had that event removed because of Parks being featured on that day. I see absolutely no reason that the exact same thing can't be done here, considering what a golden opportunity this is for us to feature Christmas on the perfect day for doing so. I wouldn't ask us to go to create lengths to wait until December 25th for featuring this article if it was, say, July, but with December almost here already, it would be silly of us not to pick the article that will make us look clever, focused, and adept at planning these things out. :) -Silence 09:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't care about its questionable status as a "rule". I am opposed to having the same thing be prominent twice on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 09:17
  • I obviously haven't made myself clear. As my above example has shown: it doesn't have to be on the main page twice. If it gets Featured on that day, we can very easily remove the other references to it, replacing them with various interesting events and observances that normally wouldn't be mentioned at all despite their importance, and making a neat new opportunity out of this unusual event to not have the "selected anniversaries" section completely dominated by Christmas (as it will be if we don't feature Christmas that day). Where's the big issue here? Why the dramatic conflict? There's no terrifying risk of redundancy here, we have a whole month to easily make sure that the page isn't excessively "Christmasy" by changing the other sections and just having the FA box featuring take care of that. OK? -Silence 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Remove Christmas as the holiday??? Of course it should be listed in the holiday section. Christmas is THE holiday on December 25th. I'm opposed to intermingling the roles of different areas of the main page, which in this case means holidays. Any other day of the year, such activity would not be allowed. By allowing an exception such as this, we expose our systematic bias to the world. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 09:31
  • Oy. Settle down. If Christmas is so incontrovertibly vital that we can't switch it out of the "holidays" section, yet so irrelevant that mentioning it on more than one isolated area on the main page would be horrifyingly, devastatingly overemphasizing the importance of Christmas in human culture and history and betraying a deep and fundamental systemic bias which will open Wikipedia up to countless criticisms for how it dares to betray even a hint of a suggestion that Christmas has any more significance on December 25th than influenza or the omnipotence paradox does, then... let's have Christmas featured on December 24th! :3 Win-win situation! fufufu. -Silence 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Christmas featured on Christmas? Kinda dull --Ryan Delaney talk 09:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No, Christmas featured on October 13th, or any other totally random day, is kind of dull. At least this gives people something to think about. -Silence 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
No, Christmas on Christmas is dull. Every single other site on the internets will be having jingle bells that day. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 11:43
No sites like Wikipedia will. :) Wikipedia should strive to be unique and innovative in relation to its past and future events, it shouldn't change itself based on what totally unrelated websites may or may not do on a certain day. -Silence 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And the Omnipotence paradox doesn't? AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Doy. Not in relation to December 25th, no. Which is the whole of the subject of our discussion. Not one person has objected to featuring that article on the main page, only to featuring it on a day, the 25th, which has already been requested by another article that has plenty of valid reason for appearing on the page on that day—a day when there's absolutely no special significance for having "omnipotence paradox" in particular featured right then, and the only clear reasons for doing so are (1) to have a good laugh at the expense of those silly Christians, and (2) to ensure that Christmas doesn't get featured that day. Even if we don't feature Christmas on the 25th, who's to say that some other great FA idea to feature on the 25ths won't come up in the month between now and then? But by then we'll have arbitrarily decided on omnipotence paradox, and it will be too late. The only point of nominating that article for that day is out of spite for Christians (derived from Wikipedia's systemic bias against mainstream beliefs and concepts in general), out of a desire to make a point focused against a specific religious group (not because the article's to appear on the 25th, but because such great lengths are taken to make it appear on the 25th, an arbitrary day that won't be around for a month), and as a tactic to ensure that Christmas doesn't get to be on the main page on that day (which is unnecessary, just opposing this vote would be enough). There's no actual significance between December 25th and the omnipotence paradox that I can see; the date is never mentioned anywhere on that page. The point of the nomination is just to help gather support for opposing Christmas on the 25th; that's why the person who started the nomination began it by messaging the Talk pages of a whole mass of Wikipedians who self-identify as atheists (including myself), in order to heavily tilt the scales in favor of banning Christmas from being featured on Christmas. An agenda is clearly at play here, whereas no agenda at all was at play in nominating Christmas to be featured on the 25th, just an innocent desire to make a witty connection between the article and the event it describes. I don't mind the actual occurrence of having that article on the 25th, as long as Christmas is featured a few days before Christmas (after would just make us look like sloppy fools), but the devious tactics, dramatics, and great lengths gone to for such a trivial difference of opinion is a bit off-putting. Where's your holiday spirit? ;F -Silence 12:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Having a holiday highlighted on its own day is off-putting to those who do not celebrate it, as well as simply tacky. Omnipotence paradox is a much more balanced article for December 25. - Korpios 10:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why having a holiday highlighted on the day it's on is any more off-putting than having Arrested Development featured on December 5th just because that's the day it starts airing new episodes again, nor why holiday mood swings should be of concern to an encyclopedia's layout choices. It's just an amusing and interesting juxtaposition that adds an extra level of "oh, I get it" to an otherwise random selection of FAs. It's neither worth going to extreme lengths to force into happening (like spending months and months working on getting the FA's time aligned right) nor worth going to extreme lengths to force into not happening (like battling against its being featured on a day when it's especially significant when there's no special reason for it not to be). With how minor the potential layout redundancy really is, a lot of this seems to just be Political Correctness causing us to squander a unique and useful opportunity... Cheh. -Silence 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree - seems like an appropriate date too. I strongly disagree with Korpios's comments - I'd find it equally apt to feature holidays of other religions on the main page too - we live in a multidenominational world with many religions, after all, jguk 11:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. Treating Christmas differently than we'd treat any other anniversary, like the Rosa Parks example given above, is what will really demonstrate our systemic bias, more so than doing simply as simple and charmingly well-timed as featuring the Christmas article on Christmas. No babies will die if we make a temporal pun like that, and Wikipedia will not fall into ruin if we have Christmas in the Featured Article box and just leave "December 25:" at the top of the "selected anniversaries" section instead of mentioning any specific holiday on that line (as is often done). The world won't end if we do something new, just this once, rather than always sticking to the same exact routine every year. -Silence 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course you'll support all other religions getting their own way now, but what about when their time actually comes? Making a special case for Christmas only reveals our systematic bias, our "sensitivity" to certain religions. Next time you say "Holy cow!" rather than something blasphemous, think about where that phrase came from. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 11:28
      • I've stated quite clearly what my thoughts are on this - namely that it is appropriate to have a featured article relating to a holiday appear on the front page on the day on which that holiday takes place. It is you who is arguing that Christmas should be a special case (namely that we should take the opportunity of it occurring to highlight a page that could be uncomfortable to Christians, or which, by the juxtaposition of dates, would be seen as taking a snide swipe at Christians), not me, jguk 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I see also that you have spammed around 60 other Wikipedians who you believe are willing to come here to support your cause. Why go Christian-bashing? Can't you let Christians enjoy their celebrations in peace and allow your article to be featured on another, less sensitive day? jguk 12:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The Omnipotence paradox should be used on December 25. Petter Nordby 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It will already be on the mainpage at the anniversaries. Gerrit CUTEDH 11:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for what it's worth; see below). Having Christmas on Christmas Day is impossibly twee. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Oh, for goodness sake. This is not a "vote". Raul654 will make his decision, and n people saying "support" and m people saying "oppose" is not going to help very much. I'm sure he knows the arguments on either side pretty well: enough already. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair point. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Thinking further, surely it would be much more interesting to put Christmas on the front page on 5 December (the night upon which, according to our article, many children in Germany put shoes out on window sills) or 7 January (when a number of Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas). It would be an interesting counterpoint to put the paradox article on the day after. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

(moved by Brian0918 on 4 December 2005)

May I tentatively suggest that, rather than 25 December, Christmas could instead be on the front page on 5 December (the night upon which, according to our article, many children in Germany put shoes out on window sills) or 7 January (when a number of Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas). It would be an interesting counterpoint to put the Omnipotence paradox article on the day after. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it would probably be best not to have this on the day of observance, because it would already be mentioned on the main page anyway; I think some other date around that time would be better, perhaps the 26th? Yeltensic42.618 18:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if you check out the page history you'll see that we talked about this a little. (there was a big flamewar and Raul put a stop to it) AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I think that having the article featured immediately or soon after the 25th would be the worst possible world, though, since it would just make it look like we tried to get the article featured in time, but failed. Having it appear a bit early seems like the best compromise, as it avoids having any of the possible main-page redundancy featuring it on the 24th or 25th would, plus it will give people interesting little factual tidbits to exchange on Christmas, whereas having the article appear after Christmas would totally squander its potential to ride the Christmas wave for the sake of attracting new people into reading Wikipedia articles and learning interesting information about a subject they may have taken for granted :o -Silence 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say the 18th would be the best - one week before the day and just as excitement is building. violet/riga (t) 18:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, around then sounds fine to me. -Silence 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Same here. I hadn't thought of that about the post-25th problems, but that does make sense. -Yeltensic42.618 02:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Before the 25th would be best. Christmas is celebrated on the 24th in some parts of Germany (and other parts of the world too), including the gifts, lighting the tree, and all that kind of Christmas stuff -- the two Christmas days (25th/26th) are usually reserved for christmas parties whereas the 24th is basically the private and clerical celebration (i.e. Christmas mass, and celebration with your closest relatives).
Besides, it's a bit pointless to explain Christmas when the (commercial) season is almost over. -- Ashmodai 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Could I just say that in the spirit of good will to all men (except one!) I would be quite happy for Sicilian Baroque to be on the front page on 25th December. Sorry Raul, er.. is there something caught in your throat? - you seem to be choking. Giano | talk 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, never mind, that one's going up December 11th. Didn't even notice. -Silence 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
For 25 December, how about Zion National Park? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
How about Omnipotence paradox for that date? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-29 18:14
No no no! Would anyone understand it do you thing Brian? Anyway it seems a very dreary page, we need some light, colour, excitement and something to drag them in from an alcoholic overfed stupor. Imagine the scene, the children have put their newly opened (and noisy) computer games away and gone to bed, others can all at last regain the family computer, having first fed the dishwasher, and have a light hearted laugh, as they/we crumble neurofen into our last glass of chianti for the day. Well that's my Christmas, once I've carried my mother-in-law up the stairs! We need something light upbeat/semi religious perhaps. C'mon it's Christmas. PS My mother-in-law is available for hire over the period, (all major credit cards accepted) she stacks a good dishwasher, usually before one has finished eating, and after her fourth chianti sings a passable Aida Giano | talk 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
We avoid choosing articles on the basis of what day it is. Also, Wikipedia is intended for a very wide audience (that being "everyone single person on the planet in their own language"), and so we can't assume that all or even most of our readers celebrate Christmas; for that reason, it would not be very fitting to observe Christmas by having "something light upbeat/semi-religious". We need to just get on with business as usual here on Wikipedia, and try to ignore what day it is. Yeltensic42.618 17:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed completely. This is exactly how TFA should work. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 18:18
Hey, Isaac Newton's birthday is on Dec 25, why not him? Borisblue 19:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not? Could he have some tinsel in his wig? Giano | talk 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Newton's birthday is NOT on December 25th, it is on January 4th.
  • We have to keep it in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to have a global perspective; even if we happen to be "Westerners", we are not necessarily writing for a "Western" audience. Christmas is a very entrenched part of Western culture, even among non-Christians such as myself, but that is not the case everywhere. Having Wikipedia aim to observe Christmas wouldn't necessarily be religious bias, but it would be cultural bias. The same goes for any other holiday. I'm not saying we should never have holidays or religions or anything as the featured article; I'm just saying we shouldn't feature them with the goal of observing them by doing so. Yeltensic42.618 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • ........I'm sure you're right. Giano | talk 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 01:14
      • Julian calendar or not, his birthday is celebrated on December 25. (see Newtonmas) and his birthday is not a selected anniversary, so he won't appear on the main page more than once. Borisblue 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting silly again, even though we are not voting this time. As I said last time around, Raul654 is well aware of the options and the factors for and against.

Summarising, are there be any objections to the following:

I still think Zion National Park is a good compromise, with an ironic twist, but there we go. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • But what is wrong with having Omnipotence paradox on December 25th? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 12:57
    • You don't need to persuade me - I'm not going to be choosing the main page article in any event. But what is wrong with having Omnipotence paradox on, say, 20 December, and something else on 25 December? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I requested it for the 25th. What is wrong with that? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:32
        • There is nothing wrong with making a suggestion - did anyone ever say that there was? - but you only need to make it once, and other people are at liberty to suggest other main-page featured articles for the 25th, as a number have. Is there anything wrong with that? Ultimately, Raul654 will decide. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but I still don't see what is wrong with my nomination. None of the other nominations for specific dates get replies questioning the date choice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:59
  • I really don't see any reason why Christmas shouldn't be featured on the 25th; it is after all a holiday intrinsically tied to one day of the year. Why shouldn't we always aim to put FAs about holidays on their days of celebration? Brian raises a fair point about Selected Anniversaries, but SA is hardly written in stone, and we could easily de-tinsel it to just the mention Christmas in the "Holidays" line at the top.--Pharos 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Because, Christmas will already be linked on the main page at least 3 times on that day. There will be "Holiday: Christmas", with a picture of a Christmas tree, and an anniversary entry about "Silent Night" being a Christmas carol written on that day, and probably at least one Did You Know? entry relating to the topic. You're suggesting we should also have the featured article be Christmas, with another Christmas-related picture? You don't think that's overkill? It will be the blandest main page to date. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 06:17
      • Perhaps my recent comment wasn't clear. I just specifically suggested above that we remove the Christmas picture and the Christmas carol, leaving just the FA and a one word "Christmas" in the Holidays section of Selected Anniversaries. As I said, SA is far from written in stone.--Pharos 06:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That suggestion sounds more appropriate for the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries page. You should probably take it up with them regarding changing their policies about that quarter of the main page. I don't understand why people are alright with having Christmas on Christmas, but not my nomination on Christmas. It's sounding more like the "double standard" that Yeltensic42.618 mentioned above is real. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 06:28
          • There are no "policies" to be changed on SA; the only policy there is that the items be well-formed and geographically and temporally diverse. PFHLai does virtually all of the hard work at Selected Anniversaries, and I doubt there will be any objection to making SA a bit less Christmas-centric this year. Of course I think Christmas should be featured on Christmas, like I think, if they (hopefully) become featured, Eid ul-Fitr should be on Eid ul-Fitr, May Day should be on May 1, and Martin Luther King Day should be on the third Monday in January. What "double standard" is that? Please assume good faith...--Pharos 07:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • What holiday would you suggest we list in place of Christmas on December 25th? I don't think it makes any sense to remove Christmas from the Holiday section, just as it makes no sense to fill the main page with references to the same article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 07:16
              • I specifically suggested taking out everything but the one word "Christmas" in the holiday line, which really is very little redundancy. We'll probably be putting multiple holidays in the first line, as is often done; December 25th this year will be the first night of Hanukkah, and of course it's Newtonmas every year.--Pharos 07:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Nope, only Christmas is listed in the Holiday line. I still disagree with having the same thing mentioned prominently twice, at the top of 2 sections, on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 07:43
                  • What do you mean, "nope"? I've just changed it, as outlined above; see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 25. I can't see how it could be said this imappropriately overemphasizes Christmas; if you can please suggest further changes.--Pharos 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we're supposed to assume good faith, but this double standard is getting increasingly obvious, it's getting to the point that "assume good faith" hardly applies. Just to clarify, I'm not even saying it's intentional bias; it's probably just inadvertent, automatic adherence to the double standard. There is really no other reason to explain why Brian is accused of pushing an atheistic agenda, while Christmas opponents are not accused of pushing a theistic agenda (I certainly don't think they are). So, that's why I am moving away from "assume good faith" here. Yeltensic42.618 21:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem people are having is trying to explain Brian's desire to replace one article on the basis that it would present a POV issue if used on the main page with a different article that would also present a POV issue if used on the same date. If he was trying to just have Christmas not be the article of the day on December 25, or if he had nominated Omnipotence paradox with no competing nominations then your comments that we should assume good faith would be correct. It is when both actions are performed together that the ability of many contributors to find a reasoned explanation is pushed into making the conclusion that something other than good faith may be at work. --Allen3 talk 01:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for completely misrepresenting my views. I do not oppose Christmas as POV pushing, but as banalizing the main page (4+ links to the same article on the main page at once is overkill). Because I opposed that, and because Raul654 has traditionally opposed featuring holiday articles on their holidays (or events on their anniversaries), I wanted another article to nominate in place of that. I went to Raul654's talk page, and found a discussion about a newly promoted featured article, Omnipotence paradox, which, as people here have repeatedly said, is written very well and, of course, neutral. Liking the article, I chose it as my nomination to replace the mundane nomination of Christmas on Christmas. I would say that assuming good faith means that you should first understand one's reasons for their actions before choosing to believe their actions were not in good faith. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 01:37

[edit] See also