Talk:Festivus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"From the Seinfeld episode"

Are all the Seinfeld quotes really necessary? The section summaries seem to do a sufficient job describing the holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.224.100 (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Is this really notable and important enough to deserve being featured on the main page's "On This Day"? — NovaDog — (contribs) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OTD features many non-serious observances, such as Pi Day and Star Wars Day, so there's certainly precedent for listing Festivus. And this is not the article's first appearance in OTD: As you can see at the top of this page, it has been listed on OTD in the past. howcheng {chat} 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is off topic on a talk page about the article, not about the main page. (You might raise concerns there.) Nonetheless, it seems to me Festivus is silly, but fun, just as the Wikipedia main page is occasionally. All kinds of observances, from sacred to sublime and from somber to silly, are listed there. Jonathunder (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

"This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references. (December 2011)"

Jeeze guys, lighten up. The article is about a humor subject and the whole thing is trivial so mentions are proper. Keith Henson (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Parody reference

If it belongs in the article at all, I don't think it belongs in the lede since it is unsupported elsewhere in the article:

• Mikkonen, Ilona and Domen Bajde (in press): Happy Festivus! Parody as playful consumer resistance. Paper accepted for publication in Consumption Markets and Culture. [1]

--Ronz (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'parody' reference expresses something about the nature of the comedic use/origin, but was right to remove at this point -- a single academic article is pretty scant evidence. Good work on the further edits :) ! I'll think about the issue and drop by in, you know, anything from a day to two years with my further edits.

The word 'invented' was also a bit heavy, but I do think we'd like to lede with the recent origin of the holiday as much as possible.

Best KenThomas (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Should the lede read "Festivus is a secular holiday celebrated on December 23 as a way to commemorate the holiday season without participating in its pressures and commercialism,[1] although the holiday rapidly became commercialised as it grew in popularity[2]." or "Festivus is a secular holiday celebrated on December 23 as a way to commemorate the holiday season without participating in its pressures and commercialism,[1]." ? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support the additionThe way I see it, the fact that a holiday intended as an alternative non-commercial holiday quickly became commercialised is notable and relevant enough that it should be mentioned in the lede, particularly as it gives the sentence context. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Against the addition The holiday of Festivus is established as a traditional holiday celebrated, as the lede says, to commemorate the holiday season without participating in its pressures and commercialism. To then say - even if one citiation exists - that some people have succeeded in changing it's meaning to its opposite would be the same as saying, say, that Christmas Day celebrates the day that baseball great Nellie Fox was born. Some people may celebrate Nellie Fox's birthday, but it has nothing to do with the purpose and formation of the holiday - and espeically in the lede of the Christmas article (no matter how much we honor Nellie Fox). At issue is the core of an established holiday. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:29 30-12-'11

p.s. please read the edit summary notes of this issue, where more points on both "sides" have been made. Maybe a section towards the bottom of the page can cover the commercialization of a holiday dedicated and created to "without participating in its pressures and commercialism". But not appropriate to change the meaning of a holiday in the same sentence which describes it in the lede.

Moderate Against I don't believe that there is sufficient documentation of commercialism to add to the lede. It is reasonable to note this position, but I think it should not be put as fact in the lede. I thus echo Randy Kryn's comments. KenThomas (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question So the dispute is whether to change the lede based upon a single reference, when the topic is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another 5 references [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 89.100.150.198 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So the answer is yes, but here are some additional sources. Looks like it deserves mention in the article. --Ronz (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Against the addition. As others have said, if such criticism has been notably made, it might be noted later in the article. It certainly has no place in the first sentence. — Shmuel (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The commercialisation of festivus -e.g. ben and jerry's festivus ice cream, and the opening of a festivus pole lot- is already mentioned in the article. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly worth a section near the bottom. Festivus seems to be a very unique holiday, in that it - via the "canon" and template of the Seinfeld show - is centered around noncommercialism. Mr. Conztanza creates it in a moment of clarity as he fights for the last doll (lol now). Now that it's popular of course people are going to try to cash in, human nature and all, but as an encyclopedic article about the holiday that fact (like Christmas in July doesn't belong upfront in the Christmas article) probably should not be in the lede but in its own section, near the bottom where such things have been mentioned in the Popular culture section. And Happy New Year to all (no, not UnHappy New Year) Randy Kryn 12:12 31-12-'11

As the lede is meant to summarise the article, would adding material to the body of the article not logically lead to its inclusion in the lede?89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If there was material elsewhere in the article supported by six references, how would WP:UNDUE apply? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have gone off topic and into hypotheticals. Perhaps you should start a separate discussion on the references, what viewpoints are represented in them, and the prominence of those viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Against the addition. Regardless of the accuracy of the assertion, the lede should speak for the intent and platonic ideal nature of the event as it is discussed in common discourse. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So we should forego accuracy to reflect what some people would like the holiday to be? That would be like only describing the Christian aspect of Christmas. Sounds POV to me.89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Against Do not edits ledes to add info to articles. Add the info to the article, then edit the lede. There's nothing in the article about commercialism, so why is it in the lede? Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is info in the article about the commercialisation of festivus. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Should the sentence "It has also been described as a parody and as playful consumer resistance," appear in the lede of the article, in the third paragraph of the introduction, or not at all. Randy Kryn 19:31 6-1-'12

Support for third paragraph. An editor has added "parody" to the lede, citing an online paper which also includes the words "playful consumer resistance" in the title. The lede describes the intent and definition of the holiday, and seems fine as it stands, for the holiday has evolved past the Seinfeld show into a life of its own focused on the non-commercial aspect of the holiday. To give equal weight to the word "parody" seems to diminish the holiday's purpose. Putting additional opinions as definitions in the third paragraph may work (although the editor also wanted to add the definition "anti-holiday", which was how one person, Jason Alexander, defined the premise of the Seinfeld episode and not the ensuing holiday.). This article isn't about the Seinfeld episode as much as it is about the ensuing holiday, probably a unique event in holiday evolution, and to give equal weight to the word "parody" would, in essence, redefine an already established holiday. Randy Kryn 19:39 6-1-'12

Duplicative. There needs to be a section about commercialism before anything goes in the lede about it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of trivia section

My recent removal of a trivia section was reverted without discussion on this talk page, although the reverter was kind enough to leave me note saying he'd reverted "because it didn’t appear constructive".

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way."

The removed material can easily be located in the history here if anyone wants to work it into the article meaningfully.

I've re-reverted pending discussion, but will not do so again.

124.168.221.199 (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. The section is question was clearly trivia. Now, I have two thoughts about this: Wikipedia says "should be avoided" but it does not out-right "ban" Trivia sections. On the other hand, using synonyms like "In Popular Culture" is disingenuous and in fact an improper title. Call it "Trivia" or get rid of it. Personally, "Trivia" doesn't bother me, especially in an article about a Parody holiday. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User (and Admin) Nikkimaria continues to revert this section *without discussion* on this Talk Page. Several things: Be honest, this section is "trivia" and as a Wikipedia Admin, you know what the Wiki policy is about "Trivia". Calling it something else is meaningless because it's still "Trivia". Now, there is nothing wrong with "Trivia", Wikipedia "discourages" it, it does not BAN it. But Trivia is trivia, not some cute synonym. Call it what it is or delete it. It's silly enough that such an article appears here at all as a serious article and not an article about a parody which is what it is, calling into question the veracity of all Wikipedia articles. It's TRIVIA, why not accept reality and move on? =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to reorganize it to compromise between the two positions, but you've repeatedly reverted me with some completely bizarre edit-summaries (WP:COI? On what grounds?). I've tried removing some of the more trivial entries, and was reverted. I've tried moving material into different sections, and was reverted. Both of these are approaches encouraged by policy; reverting good-faith attempts to address issues wholesale really isn't. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here, but it doesn't seem to be working; why don't you try fixing the article to your satisfaction? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with reorganizing the info into more appropriate places, but as long as the majority of the section content is... "trivia", that should remain the title, especially when the Trivia Template is still at the top of it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you reverted my efforts to do so. If you believed that the reorganization was acceptable, why would you not simply re-add the tag and/or change the section heading that you disliked? In fact, as you seem to be arguing above that the trivia section as it stands is valid, it would stand to reason that you wouldn't want the tag there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already said that I think the "Trivia" section title is appropriate, a change you have reverted several times. I really can't add any more to the conversation. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, you could answer two things. First, since it appears that it was mostly the change in section title that you objected to, why did you revert entire edits (which included several other changes as well) rather than simply amending the title to your preferred name? That would have been a much more constructive approach. Second, if you believe the inclusion of a trivia section is appropriate, why not simply remove the cleanup tag or edit the section to your satisfaction? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User error. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course a section should be there, notwithstanding its name. The entire data chain of recognized major media sources and governments acknowledging the holiday and its secular nature is a self-evident keeper. Randy Kryn 11:21 31 December 2012

I'm sorry, which governments recognize this? Any that allow paid time off for employees? No? Of course not. As to media sources, none that do not have their toungs firmly in their cheeks. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Parody vs. Secular

A parody holiday is a holiday that imitates or mocks a real holiday. Festivus does not even come close to fitting this description. Festivus does not imitate Christmas or the other December holidays because its purpose is completely different. Its purpose is to be a different holiday for those who are frustrated with commercialism. The term "secular holiday" covers all holidays not associated with a specific religion or denomination. More common secular holidays would include New Year's Day and Independence Day. Festivus more appropriately falls under the category of "Secular holidays" because it is separate from Christmas and the other December holidays, and it is not a religious holiday. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A parody holiday is a holiday that imitates or mocks a real holiday.

Which is exactly what "Festivus" does. While there is some "history" with a single individual, the main following of this parody holiday is a direct result of the popularity of the comedy show Sienfeld. Good grief, read the article, it's more of a parody than even Bob Dobbs. The article reads like a Monty Python script except not as funny. It's a made-up holiday that became an "inside joke" for people that watch Seinfeld. It's really that simple. Is Wikipedia a comedy show fan site? It's no wonder that schools have a hard time taking this site seriously when there are parodies like this mascaraing as "serious" articles. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now you're using "tongue in cheek" holiday. What does that even mean? At some point every holiday is a made up holiday, but Festivus has now been cited by hundreds of newspapers and other major media as a holiday, by Google and Bing (when you Bing festivus it actually gives the date), and by the number of people who look at this page near Festivus. Maybe the first few weeks of its existence you could have called it something like a parody - although the definition of parody does not fit the holiday, as the holiday does not mock or demean the television show but initially honored it (parody is not simply imitation) - but now it is established, well-known, and celebrated. Thanks to both of you for bringing this to the talk page. Randy Kryn 16:11 2-1-'13

I think your recent edits are perfict. The current version of "Festivus" states:

Festivus, a well-celebrated parody, has become the secular holiday...

I'm sorry that some don't like this wording, but it's impossible for them to make reasonable arguments against it since it is factually correct. It simply can not be argued that "Festivus" did not start out (at least "In Popular Culture") as a parody, because that would not be true. As we well know, in virtually everyone's conciousness, "Festivus" *did* start out as a parody on a well-known comedy sitcom. Folks, please accept the reality that this current wording is a very good comprimise, and accuratly reflects the actual real truth in a factual way. For folks to argue that "Festivus" *did not* start out as a parody simply undermines their credibility on this point.

I think that this compramise is good middle ground that should satisfy both ends of the opinion spectrum. The current wording establishes the popularity of this "holiday" as becomming popular as a parody on a well known television comedy program, while also telling us that there are some who have folded this parody into their secular rituals as well. Folks, it will not get any better than this, Randy Kryn has crafted great language that should satsify all but the most deluded of ideologs. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Elder O'Keefe"?

The article mentions "writer Dan O'Keefe," and then refers to "the elder O'Keefe" without giving any explanation of who that might be. Who is the elder O'Keefe?50.149.25.27 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the scoop: This is a big mess because Wikipedia, and even the New York Times, has gotten things backward. Daniel is the father who invented the trem and holiday and who wrote a book on sociology called Stolen Lightning: The Social Theory of Magic. Dan O'Keefe, his son, is a writer on Seinfeld, and he wrote the book called The Real Festivus: [7]. Even Amazon currently has it wrong -- the book cover clearly says "Dan" but Amazon's author link says "Daniel". But if you search inside the book it clearly states who is who and that the father, Daniel, invented the holiday. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned up the errors (although the article is still a mess). But thanks for bringing this to light. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: The New York Times article is INACCURATE and has the names wrong

The New York Times article gets the names of father and son completely wrong. Daniel is the father, editor and author, who invented the holiday. Dan is the son, the Seinfeld writer, who later wrote the book The Real Festivus (2005), which should actually be the authority for this article, not the misinformation from various other sources. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Florida To Celebrate Festivus With The Rest Of Us After Atheist's Beer Can Pole Display Gets Approved

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/festivus-pole-florida_n_4413818.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

That should be mentioned in the Article. 194.90.244.58 (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

http://festivusexperience.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-festivus-experience-3-types-of.html
I contend that beer cans or other distracting objects put together in a way to represent a Festivus Pole should not be recognized as a legitimate celebration, but a mockery. While informative as current events and news, the use of materials which compromise the strength-to-weight ratio of the Festivus Pole should be recognized as "non-Festivus," or at least a parody or satire of Festivus.

general stuff

Overall, this is a good article, and it approaches a funny topic with appropriate encyclopedic seriousness. However, it could be tightened up a bit. The two generations of both O'Keefes and Constanzas causes a little confusion, and some of the stuff about Festivus history and tradition is repeated unnecessarily. But overall, a fun read. PurpleChez (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussed by US Senators

Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Cory Booker used Festivus as a theme in a twitter conversation including airing grievances about the government and a challenge of wrestling as a feat of strength. Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-airs-festivus-grievances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6014:1C:2085:9A0B:ABFD:802B (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Date of Festivus and Elon University's April celebreation

This edit pins Festivus to the Dec. 23 date and removed content related to Elon University's Festivus celebration in April. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

festivus music

A Seinfeld promotional video (seen on Hulu) features a Festivus song. Can we add this in? 24.236.70.18 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Festivus might itself be someday commercilized?

Since it appears Festivus was a sort of put down on the Commerciliasation of Christmas,As mentioned in article.Isnt there a danger of it Festivus becoming commercilized as well?Eddson storms (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Thanks!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Festivus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022072123/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/12/16/DI2009121603245.html to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/12/16/DI2009121603245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Festivus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105104611/http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Ftct%2F2005%2F12%2F23%2F0512230446.php to http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Ftct%2F2005%2F12%2F23%2F0512230446.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed some text about the etymology of Festivus, on the grounds that the sources were simply dictionary entries, thus making this WP:OR. I would ask editors to review this policy before editing. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability not truth so even if the stated text is absolutely true, that does not of itself warrant inclusion in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Two of the sources in that specific text are articles about the holiday, so the etymology comes directly from page-related sourced material and not dictionaries. And in a quick look at just two other pages of fall-winter holidays, Halloween and Christmas, they both contain etymology sections. So having that information here seems consistent with at least two of Wikipedia's other time-of-year-related holiday pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Except neither page discusses Festivus as the aluminium pole holiday usage of the word. In order to not qualify as WP:OR the source needs to directly address the topic of the article. The problem is, we do not know how O'Keefe senior came up with the name, and by adding these sources, it implies that we do. Ashmoo (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I hope you read this talk page. I understand your point, being the son of the originator you want to make it clear how it happened. Unfortunately, wikipedia has rules about what can be said and sources. In order to claim festivus comes from the traditional meaning, we need a written source that claims as such. The personal testimony of editors in not enough, even if true. Please see WP:TRUTH. I realise this seems strange, but it is how wikipedia must work. If you can find an interview with yourself from a reliable outlet where you claim that, I would consider that to be reliable. Ashmoo (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I just found this page. Ashmoo, you miss the point: the new meaning does NOT derive from the older meaning, and my father specifically said it did not - but differentiating between previous meanings and the newly created one seems relevant, even under the arcane guidelines of this institution. As Randy points out, in articles on other holidays, etymology is considered valid. Thank you, Randy. DanOKeefe (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanOKeefe (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential COI

User:DanOKeefe, who purports to be the Seinfeld writer discussed in this article, has contributed 25 edits to it. KalHolmann (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The holiday has grown beyond DanOKeefe's connection to it, and is a recognized secular holiday created by his father. Every year Google, and many other websites and real-world media sources, honor, discuss, and report on the holiday. I don't think COI would apply to a major holiday, and Wikipedia editor DanOKeefe contributions add to the understanding of it and do the article no harm. I've pinged editor DanOKeefe, although he likely has this article pagewatched. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Since 2016-11-18 User:DanOKeefe has made 40 edits to 4 articles—all four of which pertain to himself. That strongly suggests a single-purpose account. Let's wait to see how other editors feel about this. KalHolmann (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed the tag. If there is anything non-neutral about the article, by all means fix it. I have notified the user on his talkpage and requested that he avoid editing these articles directly, instead making edit requests on the talkpages: User talk:DanOKeefe#Editing the O'Keefe articles and the Festivus article. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

All caps in original

Are Newsweek headlines often (or even sometimes) in all caps? Because if so, the headline should be changed to initial caps. It's just too obtrusive, and many periodical have all-caps headlines as a matter of course (NYT, and hundreds of others); that doesn't mean we render them all caps. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lower-cased most of the headline. Many films also present themselves in all caps and these are then mixed-case on Wikipedia. Good call. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)