Talk:Nativity scene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nativity scene has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 3, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Christmas / Catholicism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Christmas task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Holidays / Christmas  (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Christmas task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Nativity[edit]

This article does make clear if all nativity scenes refer to the birth of Jesus. For example it says "usually capitalized if referring to the birth of Jesus" then in the same sentence "generally refers to any depiction of the birth or birthplace of Jesus" which is it? Is it ever used as not refering to Jesus's birth? 2ct7 13:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nativity means the general time and place of a person's birth and early years. It was used to talk about dates, when a exact date of birth was not known for a person. It has since fallen out of common language except to talk about Jesus. I can't find any references to Capitalization vs. uncapitalized, so I'm going to delete that for now, if anyone finds any references please cite them and change it back. GWatsonTALK 09:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sukkot[edit]

Removed some unreferenced and POV claims, of which part is The nativity scene is actually a corrupted interpretation of the biblical/Jewish holiday of Sukkot, or also called "festival of booths". Anyone got any references for this? Goldfritha 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

someone might want to look at the really odd cultural reference section-misspellings and incorrect sentence structure abound, and it really looks as if some kid decided to add in an account of playing with them at home on christmas eve.

Peta-x 12:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) hi I notice that the "crapper" is said to be a Catalan only tradition. I live the centre of the basque country, and I note that this character is in every nativity scene here too, I suggest that the tradition started in Catalonia and has been adopted in the Basque country. Perhaps as a symbol of the rebellious, separatist north of the Iberian peninsular

Nativity Scene or nativity scene?[edit]

I don't have strong views about which it should be, but I think it should be consistent. If nobody objects, I'd like to make them all the same, but I'll wait a day or two to see if people prefer capitals or small letters. ElinorD 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I went ahead and changed capitals to small. ElinorD 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a reference for it being called a crib in the US. I've herd nativity scene, nativity set, creche, manger scene, but never crib. Basejumper2 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've altered it - crib is probably the most usual name in the Uk. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

WAY too many pictures on this page. I think the number of pictures should be significantly reduced, it makes the text hard to concentrate on. Sobar 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nativity scene/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Please remember that there are many non-US readers of Wikipedia, and many of them (yours truely included) has never heard of PETA. Therefore, always spell out such organizations, no matter how famous in a particular country. Again, this goes under the section "Controversies and lawsuits", where mentioningn the country is important to create context. For instance, it is not sufficient to write San Jose, California, but instead San Jonse, [California,] United States (your option if you want to specify the state). Many people have extremly bad knowledge of geography, and may not know in which country California, let alone Montana, is located. Remember, the English Wikipedia is read by many people from all over the world. Another instance is "In 1985, the Supreme Court...", where it is not specified which supreme court is in question, and also where Supreme Court should be wikilinked. More on this at Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. While you are free to use the term "American" to decribe something from the US, always use "United States" to decribe the country, since "America" is very ambiguous, and may be confused with the Americas. Otherwise the prose is good, and the article is interesting and well structured. By only concern is that there is a little bit too little wikilining sometimes (such as that neither Mary, Joseph or the Old Testament were wikilinked). I have done a minor copyedit, but the questions raised above need to be addressed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I notice you have chosen to manually format the references. Unlike almost all other manually formatted references, this article has a consistent and adequate output. However, I would recommend that in future articles, you use the {{cite}} templates, since it makes it a lot easier for multiple users to work with referencing the same article. Due to the high quality, I will not require a conversion in this article though.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Concerning the image licenses, File:Nativity Scene 1966.jpg does not have a valid fair use rationale. Book covers can only be used with fair use rationale when discussion the book in question, not when discussion the topic the book covers. Wikipedia:Public domain#Published works states that just because the publisher is defunct, does not mean the copyright has not been renewed, as the estate-in-bankruptcy may have sold the intellectual property in bulk. The burden of proof that the book has not had its copyright renewed is therefore on the uploader. Therefore, I have removed the image. There are a few MOS rules for images: 1) Do not force image size (this is for accessibility reasons for people who may want large images (large screen/bad sight) or small images (conventional modem connection). The exception may be the first image, which then should be 300px, to not make it smaller for people who have set 300px as the default image size. 2) Avoid sandwiching text between two images. This creates difficulty for people with small resolution. 3) Left-aligned images should not start right under a header. The header and the first paragraph below should always be commonly aligned, therefore stick left-aligned images in the middle of sections. In addition, I would have preferred if the images were spread more around the article, right now they take up a lot of space in two limited parts of the article. Otherwise, the images are good quality, varied and with appropriate captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold. Overall well written and exiting article. To get passed GA, the images need to be moved around, and the geographic biased needs a bit of tweaking. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them here. Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing this article! I have followed your recommendations and the work is (I believe!) completed. I have rearranged some sections slightly in moving the images about but the rearrangement does not affect the structure significantly nor the references. I think the movement of images and some text improves the article. I've also done some wikilinking and will keep up on this. No new material has been added. Waiting to hear from you! ReverendLogos (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Good work, and creative thinking about the reorganization. All is good now; congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lurking anti-Christians[edit]

I refer to the statement:

Some wonder if an Anti-Christian sentiment lurks behind the thefts.[46]

This seems gratuitously tendentious, and there is a telling use of the weasel words “some wonder.” Since it is footnoted, one gets the idea that there must be something in the footnote concerning these “some” who are “wondering.” However, the pertinent phrase in the article, from Fox News, actually tends to state the opposite (that it is not being done by the so-called “anti-Christians”):

The incidents raise a question: Is stealing Baby Jesus harmless juvenile fun, or anti-Christian?

"I suspect most of it is childish pranks," said attorney Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal group. "Clearly, there are adults with an agenda to remove Christ from Christmas. But they tend to occupy themselves with the courts and courtroom of public opinion."

This raises the question: Was this sentence craftily crafted by a Christian out to deceive us? This is beside the point though, and it would be better to simply have it removed.AtomAnt (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper Citations?[edit]

I very rarely do any editing, but someone directed me to this page today in reference to Nativity Controversies. Note 40 and 41, citations for instances of bans on nativity scenes lead only to an ISBN number for a book by David Limbaugh; they provide no page numbers. Is this proper citation practice?

Because I was curious, I searched amazon's digital record of the book, and found his citation, which just a press release from a Christian organization with no citations of their own. After some effort, I finally found the detailed case law on the specific case referenced. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1351830.html) Obviously that's a much better citation than an unnumbered citation to a book, should I simply replace it?

Again, I'm not at all an experienced editor, but am a little concerned that the listed citation was so difficult to actually track down to a legitimate source. Is this common practice, to link to a book that may or may not be embellishing the facts? Danweasel (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really the citation should have page numbers, otherwise um, yes, if you think Rush L is a WP:RS, although that might be considered dubious. I haven't followed up these refs, but since both occur more than once, it might be better to add your better ref at the appropriate spot. Also nb, yours is I think a "primary source"; ironically WP prefers you use Rush! But obviously WP referencing is not supposed to be limited to what is obtainable online. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Names?[edit]

Hi, I came to this page to understand why there are so many different name. Do they mean different types? Or are the purely regional (like soft drink names)? If anyone can please help, I'd be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.217.103 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Referencing[edit]

This is my first time editing a page so I'm not sure what the protocol is but I would like to bring to your attention the questionable nature of one the quotes cited in this article. I have read the source 'Holy Dogs and Asses: Animals in the Christian Tradition' which is used as a reference in the section animals in nativity scenes completely. However this sentence "Then was fulfilled that which was said by Habakkuk the prophet, saying, "Between two animals you are made manifest."[15] I have been unable to location or any mention of Habakkuk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.72.239 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Playmobil nativity scenes[edit]

Playmobil has done several Nativity scenes throughout the years (examples here, here, here, and here) - this could be mentioned in a section below the Lego one. I'd do it myself but the page is green starred and I am loath to tamper with it casually. - Metalello talk 01:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nativity Scene Displays in Australia[edit]

Editor WILRIT has again added an entire section on the nativity scene displays in Australia. The first time I deleted it seemed like a major copyright violation, especially the first two paragraphs. Even with the recent edits it still seems like one but I can't find the exact article that the second half came from so will give the benefit of the doubt. I removed a majority of the section due to issues of WP:PEACOCK. It wasn't very encyclopedic in nature and seemed more like an advertisement. I question whether this particular nativity scene is notable enough for Wikipedia. Please provide a reliable source that shows this is notable outside of one particular parish/region. Many churches have historic nativity scenes and many date back a long time before 2004. How is this more notable then them? Marauder40 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nativity Scenes in the world[edit]

I would want us to figure out a way to deal with the multi-cultural nature of the subject, without it becoming either a mere listing nor going too heavily to a few examples, which is sort of the current state, nor becoming the center of the article. Maybe a Nativity Scenes In The World as a separate article? African, Latino culture are barely represented right now. Please advice. The recent issue with Australia point this out. I am also a bit concerned about the very time-limited nature of some of that content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talkcontribs) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus & Nativity Scene & Nativity of Jesus in Art[edit]

I see a lot of overlap and disconnection between those three articles. I.e., the issue of the Vatican portraying Matthew instead of Luke falls squarely into the Nativity of Jesus article, as it deals with theological/content interpretations. Likewise, Nativity of Jesus in Art seems to be about 2D depictions and Nativity Scene about 3D depictions, but there is obvious overlap if we only see the titles. Maybe some elegant disambiguation line indicating that 2D is elsewhere? right now Nativity of Jesus in Art is not even mentioned in See Also. Opinions, advice appreciated. This might be a candidate to "good" article by its writing, but is rather not quite there for its content, IMHO...YamaPlos talk 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican portion is addressing the nativity scene itself. Specially that the nativity scene displayed was based on the Gospel of Matthew, as such it belongs in this article. It isn't addressing the theological interpretations of what the Vatican considers in all nativity scenes or anything like that. If you want to add Nativity of Jesus in art to the See Also section, by all means do it. However it wasn't totally forgotten, if you look at the bottom of the page, this page is listed in the Category "Nativity of Jesus in art" as well as several other Categories. As for the good article comment, that is the difference between this being a good article and a featured article. It isn't at featured article status or even "A" status. Marauder40 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed, as I become more familiar with this article (is this my second day?), I found a moment ago that Nativity of Jesus in art is the overall category. It would be a goal to make something better of this article, we will need people to add to it. I want to invite the members of Friends of the Creche, but I am wary on what reception they will have, as they are not WP experts. All help, edition (as in improving) and guidance appreciated, as it is likely some attempts might be less than perfect, and it's unlikely they will even dare, though really they are the experts. I am finding very, very deep articles in Czech, alas, in Czech :-), Actually whole in-depth journals on the subject.YamaPlos talk 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Nativity of Jesus in Art deals with the tradition in conventional and permanently installed fine art, mainly in 2D but also in 3D. The distinct popular tradition of seasonal Nativity Scenes is sufficiently different to rate its own article. I don't see a problem - surely Nativity of Jesus in Art is linked in the text? Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see it in the text, and there's that opening sentence that talks about 2D vs. 3D that I am at odds on what to do with it outside of a complete rewrite of it.. Hmm. Do you see what we could do with it? I still wish for some clearer redircet, like including what you just said, i.e. fine art. Also, :-) where is the line between folk and temporary art that eventually becomes more? Maybe we'd need to reconsider the side of folk art to this whole thing? i.e., at least in Czechlands, the family creche and the whole miniature and paper thing began when then institutional (church) creche was prohibited by the Emperor, 18th century. OK, I'll start by adding the See Also, which is too short. Thank you! YamaPlos talk 21:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added it to the lead now, & tried to simplify what was was a rather confusing definition. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks. I added it to See Also but I feel I botched it. Correct if you think it needs. Also, the Nat in the Arts has a subsection on folk art, someday we may need to move it somewhere, if we want a clearer/cleaner focus on the fine arts (which I think is a good distinction deserving that as its own article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talkcontribs) 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated links[edit]

Edits I am making are repeatedly being reverted, by an editor who seems, IMHO, to be inventing her own WP policy. Links can and are often duplicated in an article, as within the text and in "Also see". It is quite common! Just see the sister article Nativity of Jesus in art, it does call for this article, Nativity scene, both in the text and also in the Also See. Please, Marauder80, let us do work, please! FYI, it would be extremely easy to make an official bot to clean such links, if there was a need and policy, which there is not! Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but don't pretend it's some sort of rule, if it's just your opinion. Could you please let us build? you are welcome to build with us, you know! If you disagree, please put the issue in the Talk page and let us talk about it, OK? YamaPlos talk 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In a long article a link might be repeated in text, but links in the text should not be in See also as well. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yamapolis, if you had looked at the link I provided to you to the policy on see also sections you would have seen the policy. In general links are not supposed to be duplicated. As Johnbod said, it is primarily only done in large articles. Please consider the advice of other users that have been around a lot longer. Just because another article may be violating the guidelines does not give this article the same privilege. Different articles are at different stages in their development and some qualify for exceptions to the rule and things like that. Stop seeing reverts as if they are an attack.Marauder40 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
By the nature of this article, IMHO it does need the double link, reflecting the other article in question. Also, with the "new" look and feel of WP, where a user might expand (or not) a given section, it is unclear that there is indeed another (major) article that deals with the fine arts side of the subject. The said link in the introduction (a section that BTW needs citations) is confused among IMHO silly links, of which I added a couple, to my own embarrassment. As to the personal issue, I am afraid I will pay attention to Johnbod's advice, as he does build articles. It would be nice that, when you revert Marauder40, you did so constructively and carefully, then it would be clear you intend to help, not just your time in WP. Johnbod, I use as authority the fact that Nativity of Jesus in art does have both links. So, in your opinion, if this article were as long, it could have both links? Is there a simple measure of when an article is "long enough"? Thanks!! YamaPlos talk 23:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to indicate that policy that you say is relevant here, so it is together with the Talk, Marauder40? Thanks! Until I see it, it is hard to believe such policy exists, as it makes little sense except for VERY short articles. YamaPlos talk 23:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. here it is, Wikipedia:SEEALSO I'll go see it, report later, thanks. YamaPlos talk 23:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon, now that I read it, there is no such policy as a mandate.
Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. 
The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a 
comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule, the 'See also' 
section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
So, Marauder40, if you don't like the link, would you care to discuss the matter in the Talk page, please? There has been a previous instance of you reverting without noticing (or fixing) the damage that you do, and the waste of effort and gumption that you cause. I merely and humbly request that you be considerate of the work of others. I am sure that your experience and attention can find more worthy instances. YamaPlos talk 23:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I already explained the reasoning and so did Johnbod. You clearly are having an issue on editing via consensus. The suggestion is very clear. Also your insistence on such a minor issue is puzzling. Links are not to be duplicated unless it is a large article. This is not a large article. If you truly are here to build a good article worry about the contents and let those of us that know the polices worry about the policies and offer the suggestions on how to keep the policies. You are acting like this is a battle instead of working towards a good article.Marauder40 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Marauder40, you assume you are defending policy. As posted (please read), this matter is not one of policy, but of "editorial judgment and common sense". "as a general rule" does not mean `always. You say the matter has to do with the length of an article. please, citation needed. You say you are acting on a consensus, however you started reverting my edits before` you came to the Talk page. I see no consensus - you have an opinion, which Johnbod sees in a somewhat similar way - but that's it. IMHO that is no consensus. You accuse me of acting in a pugnacious way, yet it is you who has a systematic record of being aggressive and refusing to compromise. I am sorry on how those attitudes reflect for this article and WP as a whole. As to this being a "minor issue", I am afraid it is a most important issue in Wikipedia right now, how "younger" editors are being driven away by reverts. If I give up on this just because you have worn of, not because you are right (and IMHO, you are not), it's a fail for WP. Please, help build. Building can sometime be done by reverting, but seldom. YamaPlos talk 13:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

By theme, by nation or by "sponsorship" (folk or institutional)[edit]

So far the examples section is a jumble of specific examples (way too narrow and not quite encyclopaedic, IMHO), national, and institutional approaches. The crèche as a popular phenomenon might be very localized, and respond to specific patterns of religious and secular policy, and be quite different from "official" versions.

My feeling would be to do a regional thing, but that fails in traditions that cross borders. Now, if we go to specific traditions, those have local variations... Opinions? maybe the best would be to clean up some, and have both? Likely, as with any compromise, we will end with "all of the above and then some. Oh well :-) I guess all if fine as that might be easier for more editors to add valuable material YamaPlos talk 23:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)