Talk:Christmas: A Biography

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Christmas: A Biography says that Christmas became secular and capitalist shortly after its inception in the fourth century? Source: as Flanders repeatedly shows: Yuletide has almost always been more rowdy and secular than reverent or religious. + Mythologizing Christmas by selling it, she argues ... has been a slowly building process that began almost as soon as Christmas became a widely practiced tradition
  • ALT1: ... that according to Christmas: A Biography, Christmas became secular and capitalist shortly after its inception in the fourth century? Source: Same as above
  • ALT2: ... that there is a biography on Christmas? Source: Book title, enough said
  • ALT3: ... that one critic called Christmas: A Biography "body armor when the war on Christmas shrapnel sprays"? Source: Thankfully, there is Judith Flanders' Christmas: A Biography, which can serve as body armor when the "war on Christmas" shrapnel sprays.
  • ALT4: ... that one critic recommended Christmas: A Biography for those whose "eagerness in Christmas starts in August"? Source: If your eagerness for Christmas starts in August, you need this book.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meillet's principle & Template:Did you know nominations/Extraterritoriality of Princess Margriet's birth
  • Comment: Not sure if WP:DYKFICTION applies to non-fiction, but considering there's been several non-fiction book hooks about what the book has, I don't think it does.

Moved to mainspace by Miraclepine (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 65 past nominations.

ミラP@Miraclepine 17:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

• Comment:I think there's a few problems here. ALT0 and ALT1 are red flags, and are not supported by the book. They are cultural and verbal anachronisms. Capitalism didn't arise until the 16th century, so Christmas couldn't have become capitalist in the fourth century. I looked at the book, and the author doesn't say this. It sounds like you are citing book critics who may have been writing tongue in cheek or perhaps were making their own arguments, I don't know. Also, there's similar problems in the article itself. For example, you write, "After debunking the myth of pagan winter solstice celebrations due to a lack of sufficient evidence, it reveals that the precursor of Christmas was the Mithraism winter solstice celebrations, which were later co-opted by Christians under the rule of Pope Julius I for the celebration of the nativity of Jesus on 25 December." I think you may have misread the passage in the book. The author doesn't debunk anything. The author notes that we only have evidence for pagan celebrations handed down to us by the Romans; the evidence of pagan winter solstice celebrations in Europe prior to the Romans has been lost to time. Also, the author doesn't say "Christmas has always been a secular, capitalist celebration", perhaps that's the argument of the book reviewers and critics. The author's central thesis is given several times: 1) while Christmas is known as a Christian holiday, it wasn't always known as a solemn, religious event in the past, and has tended to focus on celebration and entertainment more than religion. 2) Christmas is made up of many different traditions, and is not unique to any one nation or culture. Now, the author describes this "dancing and feasting" in the fourth century as a "secular pleasure", which is an odd use of the term given that it was an official Christian holiday at the time. The author's argument goes further, pointing to both the religious nature of Saturnalia, which began several days before December 25, the religious worship of the birth of Mithras on the winter solstice, and the secularity of a Roman New Year's festival during the New Year, when people spent more money than usual on festivities, particularly the wealthier class. Far from debunking the pagan origins, the author notes that Christmas merely absorbed the practices and traditions of the pagan festivals. By the middle ages "the focal point...for the majority was not the birth of Christ, but eating and drinking and entertainment". We don't really see capitalism mentioned at all here, so I think there's needs to be a bit of a rewrite. Yes, the author does point to secular practices quite a bit, so you may have a good argument for including that term. Now, assuming changes are made to the article based on the above, I could support some modification of either ALT0 or ALT1. Not a fan of ALT2, ALT3, or ALT4. If you do modify ALT0 or ALT1, I think there's support in the book to say that "Christmas became secular", but I honestly think you should try and go with a new hook that cites the author's thesis directly instead of pointing to secularism. That is to say, a hook that focuses on showing that even though Christmas is a Christian holiday, it has historically focused more on eating, drinking, and entertainment than religion. That kind of hook would remain entirely true to the central thesis of the author, while mentioning capitalism does not, as I don't see where she discusses capitalism in the book other than to point to the Scrooge trope of the Potter character in It's a Wonderful Life. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm missing something. Thinking about it further as I look at the book, there's far, far more interesting hooks here, that make the above all but worthless. You've got a good opportunity to share unusual information about the history of Christmas that most people aren't aware of, and I think you should go that route. The author focuses, for example, on unusual Christmas traditions in the middle ages that would make great hooks. Chapters 5 and 6 talk a lot about the transition into modern conceptions of Christmas that also has a wealth of hooks available. Chapter 7 shows the development of commercialism and how it radically changed the holiday. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I've fixed the pagan myth part and capitalism anachronism.

Also, the reviews tend to point out facts about the book before giving their opinion; would citing the author's thesis be directly from the book or the reviews' factual content? As for scourging the book for hooks, I believe how the book works is usually more hookier than random stuff the book has, and to be fair, I figured ALT2 would be hooky given the irony between the word biography (indicating it's about a person) and Christmas being a concept.

I have added new hooks without the capitalism anachronism, as well as those that focus on the secularism and enjoyment:

• ALT5A: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that Christmas has been about celebration and enjoyment since its inception in the fourth century? Source: the earliest of days the focal point of Christmas for the majority was not the birth of Christ but the acts of eating, drinking and being merry + Christmas, of course, has been all things to all people since it was first recorded as a festival in the fourth century… a religious occasion, a family celebration, a time of eating and drinking. And yet the origins of the customs which characterise the festive season are wreathed in myth.
• ALT5B: ... that according to Christmas: A Biography, Christmas has been about celebration and enjoyment since its inception in the fourth century? Source: Same as ALT5A
• ALT6A: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that Christmas has been mostly secular since shortly after its inception in the fourth century? Source: First ref at ALT0
• ALT6B: ... that according to Christmas: A Biography, Christmas has been mostly secular since its inception in the fourth century? Source: First ref at ALT0
• ALT6C: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that despite its Christian origins, Christmas has been mostly secular since shortly after its inception in the fourth century? Source: First ref at ALT0 + Flanders begins with the background of Christmas festivities ... Early Christian leaders apparently recognized that because many converts were used to commemorating [the Mithraic winter solstice], it made sense to co-opt it, even though Christ was probably born sometime in spring or summer.

BTW you should try to organize your long replies by paragraph and topic so they're easy to read. Let me know if I missed something. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The problems are still in the article and the hooks don't necessarily reflect the book. The lead still says the book "suggests that the holiday's transition towards secular capitalism occurred shortly after its inception in the fourth century", the body still says the book "explores the belief that Christmas shifted from what Flanders calls 'a deeply solemn religious event' to one of secular capitalism" That's not in the book and the author doesn't discuss that and it's not her central thesis as I showed up above. You're also misreading what you call "a lack of what Flanders calls 'convincing evidence' of pagan winter solstice celebrations". The book doesn't say that at all, quite the opposite. The author says that the evidence of pagan celebrations in Europe has been lost. Tell you what, tell me which secondary sources discuss capitalism and the lack of convincing evidence for pagan celebrations, and we can resolve this. Otherwise, stick to what the book says and what good summaries and reviews agree upon, and you should be just fine. If you like, I can provide additional examples of how to fix the problem, but I assumed that I already did this in my original reply. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I see now that part of the problem is your misreading of Dirda 2017.[1] Dirda isn't making the same claim about capitalism and pagan winter solstice celebrations that you are. Please, read it again, as it reflects what I've been saying all along. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Curbow 2017; The Economist 2023; Hughes-Hallett 2017; Manning 2017; Publishers Weekly 2017. What do all of these sources have in common? None of them describe Christmas: A Biography as the "belief that Christmas shifted from what Flanders calls 'a deeply solemn religious event' to one of secular capitalism", nor do any of them say that a "transition towards secular capitalism occurred shortly after its inception in the fourth century", which as I have pointed out in my comments makes no sense whatsoever. Barbara Hoffert of Library Journal wins the award for summarizing the 300+ page book in twenty-one succinct words: "Flanders documents Christmas as celebration, from an early pope's complaints about excess holiday cheer to the first holiday parade (not Macy’s!)." That's exactly what the book is about, no more, no less. From what I can gather, the nominator may have been confused by Michael Dirda's WaPo review. Dirda accurately summarizes one of the author's central points: "Yuletide has almost always been more rowdy and secular than reverent or religious." When Dirda writes "First off, forget the Druids: 'No convincing evidence of winter solstice celebrations in pagan Europe has survived", that does not mean that there is a lack of pagan winter solstice celebrations. The author of the book makes this clear in the context of investigating why the date of 25 December was chosen for Christmas. The author muses, perhaps it was because of the winter solstice, but unfortunately, "no convincing evidence of winter solstice celebrations in pagan Europe has survived", so we can't know for sure. This is entirely different than what the article currently says and what it said before. So, I've detailed these many problems several times now. If the nominator wants me to send them a digital copy of the book, please send me an email and I will share an attachment that they can review. The book is not about secularism nor capitalism, it is about how the notions of what we think of as Christmas, which is rooted in the Christian tradition, hasn't really been a solemn, religious event in the past or in the present, and has generally been a time for celebration, such as eating, drinking, and entertainment. Finally, the author discusses how Christmas is made up of many different cultural (and national) traditions, emphasizing the hybridity and fluidity of different traditions involved. In other words, it ain't American, it ain't German, it ain't British, etc. As the nominator correctly observes in the article, consumerism and commercialism came much later, not as we are also told in the current version "shortly after its inception in the fourth century". The problems are not insurmountable. All that is needed is a will to fix them (and the hooks). The "secularism" that the book discusses is the celebration, divorced from its Christian religious beliefs. ALT5A and ALT5B get much closer to this idea, but sadly, they are not interesting compared to the wide variety of possible hooks found in the book and the reviews. Get rid of the "capitalism" material (it's not in any of the secondary sources nor is it in the book), tone down the concept of secularism and focus instead on the secular nature of celebration over the many centuries, and find a great hook, and I think we can move forward. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I have already fixed the central points issue.

For the pagan part the book says "No convincing evidence of winter solstice celebrations in pagan Europe has survived. Instead, the first instance of such celebrations that we know of was in Roman times", and I have already replaced the Dirda ref with the book ref and clarified there so that it matches what the refs say.

As for the secular capitalism part, I just forgot to update the lede when I fixed the issue; I have fixed the lede discrepency as well as matched the secular capitalism part with what the book has.

Also TBH my concern is that noting specific examples might be undue? That's why I prefer those found in secondary sources and why I tried to refrain from using the trivia in the book for hooks.

Oh, I don't have the book, just a limited preview at Google Books with a disorganized search option.

Hear are the new hooks (all are on secular Christmas celebrations except 6E, which I added to fix a factual discrepancy):

• ALT6D: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that Christmas celebrations have been mostly secular since its inception in the fourth century? Source: First ref at ALT6A + Christmas, of course, has been all things to all people since it was first recorded as a festival in the fourth century… a religious occasion, a family celebration, a time of eating and drinking
• ALT6E: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that despite its Christian origins, Christmas has been mostly secular since its inception in the fourth century? Source: Same as ALT6C
• ALT6F: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that despite Christmas's Christian origins, its celebrations have been mostly secular since its inception in the fourth century? Source: Same as ALT6C + Ref 2 in ALT6D
• ALT6G: ... that Christmas: A Biography says that despite the Christian origins of Christmas, its celebrations have been mostly secular since its inception in the fourth century? Source: Same as ALT6C + Ref 2 in ALT6D

Again, let me know if there are any issues I missed. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Email me, and I will send you the book. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done ミラP@Miraclepine 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: And about these issues I've fixed? ミラP@Miraclepine 23:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, I really do. I don't know why you keep coming back to the capitalism thing. The author only addresses the commercialism and consumerism of modern Christmas in the post-1800 era, which takes up perhaps 2 of the 12 chapters. The book is not focused on "explor[ing] the belief that Christmas shifted from a deeply solemn religious event to one distorted by our own secular, capitalist society". What Flanders is addressing on p. 3 is not her thesis (which I've addressed multiple times up above, so I don't know why you keep going down this path), but how our current beliefs about Christmas in the past are based on questionable assumptions. She's directly addressing the popular argument that crass commercialism has "sullied" the religious aspects of Christmas, and she counters this with her thesis showing it has always been a celebration. The argument itself is not part of the thesis, but definitely plays a large role in her development of it. That's very different than saying the book explores that question. It might help if you stick with the secondary sources on questions about what the book explores, and when you have that framework, then cite Flanders directly. That's generally how I write most articles. The latest issue is not that much of a big deal as the previous ones, but I did want to point it out. I will do a read through now. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to make some notes here:

• Infobox: You have some strange formatting here. I've never seen italics used like this before.
• Lead: The accuracy issues have been mostly fixed, so that's very good. In other words, the lead is mostly accurate. As for the composition, it need a bit of work and I recommend tightening it up a bit. Revisit the secondary sources and take a closer look at the book I sent you; skim the 12 chapters. You'll get a better idea of how to write a good summary and tighten up the wording.
• Contents: Needs a bit of work. I've addressed two of the problems up above, so I will only address additional ones here: additions and subtractions: "In addition to the English-speaking world, it discusses festivities from Continental Europe, including the Finnish tradition of reindeer moccasins; during then (link to Santi-Chlaus, as I created the redirect); You write "the poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas" which doesn't connect directly with anything, so fix that by filling in the gaps from page 99. "During its coverage on the topic, There are two contrasting accounts of contemporary Christmas festivities in London". "Forbes said that this "demonstrates that not all were able to regard Christmas as the season to be jolly". This is an unnecessary quote as it is covered extensively in pp. 154-160 and you can easily use your own words to describe the differences. Also, if you back up a few pages you'll see you're actually missing important information about how Christmas used to last 12 days and how it changed from a holiday for adults to a holiday for children, and how the rise of rail transport led to larger Christmas parties, requiring the working class to increase their labor to serve the increased number of people in huge celebrations for the middle class. Prussia banned work on Christmas Eve and Day, but allowed for loopholes which kept the working class laboring when they should have had the days off. This is all in the book, and you don't have to cover it, but summarizing it explains why "not all were able" to be jolly. You don't need the Forbes quote to do that. Show, don't tell, etc. "Discusses, discussion". You use variants of this word six times in this section alone. "Addition". You use this word three times. "discusses Christmas music". You're missing a word here; rewrite. "the relatively-recent origins of Christmas songs like "Jingle Bells", the role of Jewish composers in the creation of such music". You're missing "and". Overall, except for the working class bit, your summary is fairly comprehensive, so good job on that.
• Reception: You're all over the place here. Find a common theme around the reviews and group them together. You're also giving us quotes that don't really inform, and are better off paraphrased or excised all together and replaced with a short summary of whether they liked the book or not and if they had specific criticisms. Then group those criticisms together by shared attributes. Each critic will usually take a specific POV based on their own interest and expertise, which is the easiest way to group their comments. You did this with the last paragraph, grouping the critics around the shared attribute of gift giving, but while this is a good way to do it, we don't need an entire paragraph of critics saying "Buy this book as a gift", so in addition to grouping by shared attributes, you also have to know when to cite and what to cite, and determine what is important. I think if I put some time into it, I could find a common theme, but honestly this section needs to be rewritten. Focus on the salient aspects of each critic. What is the takeaway, their main point that is relevant to the review? They usually give that away in the title (but not always), so it's generally easy to find. Then find the most important point and try to write it in your own words. It's truly not important to tell us that the book "makes for a fine last-minute present". What is important is to find out why the critic thinks people should buy it. Write about that instead. Bring the reception back on topic to literature, not the marketplace of book buying. Etc.

@Viriditas: My equally long reply:

"I don't know why you keep going down this path/I don't know why you keep coming back to the capitalism thing" Apologies for often getting lost here and there, but given how long your replies are it takes time to do everything at once. At the least I have fixed the beginning of the body by adding the "how our current beliefs about Christmas in the past are based on questionable assumptions" and strengthening the lede's indication that the book is primarily about the history of Christmas, and I had previously fixed the "secular, capitalist society" part to match the book.

For the italics in the infobox: I was following the example at Template:Infobox book.

For contents: I have done all the contents, and specifically: I reworked the contrasting contemporary accounts; and I removed the St. Nicholas poem for feeling out of place. As for "summarizing it explains why "not all were able" to be jolly", all I needed was the work issue.

For reception: Yeah, in hindsight, the holiday present gimmick, while fun, is sadly bad for POV and due weight. I have trimmed half of the quotes and grouped the reception paragraphs by reason and made things more literature-focused, and to make up for the loss in the reviews, I've put the quotes into the notelist.

For lede: I'll look at the book and revamp the contents accordingly.

That reminds me: since the reception was trimmed, I may have to trim the contents section for due weight.

Oh, and one thought I had while fixing your proposed minor changes: per Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_202#c-RoySmith-20241101020900-Crisco_1492_mobile-20241101015300 you can make certain minor changes yourself even if you're the reviewer. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Okay, I've finished trimming (sorry I had to cut out Swiss German Santi-Claus and the Victorian London comparative accounts) and, since the contents are thematically sorted, I'm not really sure I need to skim the book. Also I reserved this for Christmas Day or Eve. What do you think? ミラP@Miraclepine 00:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you now have the book, and it will take you 5-10 minutes to skim the book, please do so anyway. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Sure, but there's not gonna be enough room for everything and I might have to trim to make room for more. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want, but that's not what I mean. All I meant was, double-check everything is correct. That's all. Using myself as an example, I often have to double-check and triple-check my work, because errors do inevitably slip in somehow, one way or another. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I've skimmed the whole book and thus did some expansions while balancing due weight with secondary sources. Oh, and I made sure everything in the contents section was accurate in the book. Not to mention the release info I added. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question: Why does Picador refer to the book as Christmas: A History with a newer publishing date?[2] Was the book rebranded with a new title a year later? Also, I remember reading that the British edition had more pages. Was there more content? Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked the History book. On the copyright page it says "Originally published as Christmas: A Biography 2017 by Picador". The newer version was published in November 2018. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Which makes no sense given it was reprinted again under the original title in 2019 by Thomas Dunne Books for St. Martin's. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the publishing industry, but this is quite odd and indicates some kind of dispute, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: FWIW the 2017 publication dates are for the original editions, so these should be enough. So, is this ready for DYK? ミラP@Miraclepine 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I find it odd that you note the publication history, particularly the Japanese language edition on 13 November 2018, which uses the new title, but not the new English title that was released previously. I will have to add that since you appear somewhat nonplussed about the gap. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed and added. I can't get past the lead, where you write "the book talks about Christmas festivities throughout history, particularly the role of Merry England in the rise of modern Christmas during the 19th century". Nope, that's not a big part of the book. She mentions the term "Merrie England" three times, and as your NYTBR source points out, it's in reference to a small part of the false view of "Christmas Past" traditions. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I added the release history after I realized how odd it was to have American info in the infobox but not the British, and had to make this part of the reception section (now titled "Release and reception" in line with many a GA) due to size. Your Picador ref looks good but I fixed it since it goes to the site. Oh, and your idea of the lede looks good too! Everything good here? ミラP@Miraclepine 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Yes, but we need to focus on the hooks now. Are you going with ALT6D...ALT6G, or did you have something else in mind? Consider choosing a new hook based on a surprising, but informative fact from the synopsis. I think that would be far more successful. Ideally, you could briefly expand that one fact in the synopsis by one extra sentence as well to show how unusual it is, preferably something most people don't know about Christmas history and traditions. That's what I would recommend doing. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yeah, I'm pretty sure my proposed hooks should be enough, and these are the ones I've sorted from most hooky to least: 6D, 6G, 6E, 6F, 6B, 5B, 5A, 2, 3. Feel free to choose one. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are enough, but they are honestly not that interesting or unusual. Please take another look at the Helen Davies review for some ideas.[3] If you find one you like, you can go back to the book and briefly expand it, while using the secondary source to support it. Davies gives a brief example of several unusual hooky factoids from the book that would make good hooks. The more I look at the Davies review, the more I think this is where you should get your hook from. Please read it again. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note, there’s some great hooks in the Davies article. If you chose to talk about the Christmas stroll (Weihnachtswanderung), you could present it for use as the lead hook, since there’s an image. It doesn’t get any better than that! Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

IDK, the image is fine and all but Weihnachtswanderung seems "X mentions Y" boring, especially compared to "X shows that Y" (any chance we can reconsider ALT6D-G with "says" replaced by "shows"?). I looked at the Davies article and I didn't find much that were interesting/unusual enough and could be fit in the contents section. But at the least I improved the reception with what I did find and proposed two hooks. I personally love the irony and hyperbole in these hooks.

• ALT7A: ... that The Sunday Times criticised Christmas: A Biography for being "a little rose-tinted"? Source: She can, however, be a little rose-tinted. She fleetingly mentions the annual peak in divorce rates and the fact that domestic violence rises by a third during the Christmas break, but goes no further. I would also have welcomed far more on the humbugs who have vented their spleen over the festive season
• ALT7B: ... that Christmas: A Biography was criticised for being "a little rose-tinted"? Source: Same as ALT7A
• ALT8A: ... that Christmas: A Biography has more footnotes "than there are presents under a Rockefeller Christmas tree"? Source: But it would be a disservice to suggest that this is not a well-researched account. There are more footnotes here than there are presents under a Rockefeller Christmas tree.
• ALT8B: ... that The Sunday Times said that Christmas: A Biography has more footnotes "than there are presents under a Rockefeller Christmas tree"? Source: Same as ALT8A

ミラP@Miraclepine 00:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we are miscommunicating again. I will pass this over to someone else and they can choose one of your hooks. None of the potential hooks in Davies article are "x shows y". The Weihnachtswanderung isn't boring; Flanders shows it is the origin of holiday advertising. As for other potential hooks by Davies with source support from Flanders:

• In the 18th-century belsnicklers went from house to house during Christmas in Pennsylvania, with blackened faces and animal skins, bringing nuts and cakes for good childlren and whips for bad ones.
• As early as the 15th century, Christmas trees in Germany were decorated with "apples, wafers, tinsel and gingerbread"
• The hogglers were an early charity group in England who collected money during Christmas.
• "Christmas has assimilated traditions from half a dozen cultures and countries, while almost always retaining a focus on family."
• In Finland, tonitwa, Christmas Gremlins, wear reindeer moccasins while bearing gifts
• In London, the tradition of Christmas crackers started with Tom Smith who invented "fire-cracker sweets", treats wrapped in paper with saltpetre which made a loud noise when opened.

There's dozens of these in the secondary sources, but you're ignoring all of these in favor of frankly the most boring hooks I can imagine, none of which I find interesting. Anyhoo, let's let someone else choose your hooks, as we see this so differently. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything checks out, but need a second reviewer to choose a hook. I don’t find the hooks interesting per my comment directly above his one. However, I will pass due to the time constraints of building the Christmas queue. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: To be clear, I don't think we are miscommunicating, we're just disagreeing on what hooks are interesting. Hence, I guess an extra pair of eyes is fair enough. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I can't comment on the state of the article or the sourcing, I do find ALT8B good (ALT8A is in Wikivoice and probably wouldn't pass scrutiny). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Meh. Who cares that a book has a lot of footnotes? Gatoclass (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

ALT3 is the best hook IMO, the problem is that the thought is not expanded upon at all in the article, if the nominator were to add something to the article about why the critic saw it as "body armor for the "war on Christmas" that would be the one to go with IMO. Otherwise, ALT2 also looks acceptable to me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, some variation of ALT0/ALT1 would probably be best. I'll take a closer look at this a little later. Gatoclass (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)