Talk:Nativity scene

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. GWatson • TALK 09:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nativity

message: 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)
thread_title: Sukkot

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

text: I've altered it - crib is probably the most usual name in the Uk. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity Scene or nativity scene? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lurking anti-Christians 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proper Citations? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable Referencing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Playmobil nativity scenes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nativity Scene Displays in Australia 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity Scenes in the world 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity of Jesus & Nativity Scene & Nativity of Jesus in Art 

message: 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)
thread_title:  By ''theme'', by ''nation'' or by ''"sponsorship"'' (folk or institutional) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nativity scene. 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/20130514131350/http://web.cmoa.org/?page_id=319 to http://web.cmoa.org/?page_id=319
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/weekendmorning/episode/2010/12/12/doing-the-time-warp/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219001257/http://www.amicidilancianovecchia.it/moduli/DEPLIANT2013-presepe.pdf to http://www.amicidilancianovecchia.it/moduli/DEPLIANT2013-presepe.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem