Talk:Winterval

message: I've removed a section that states "Despite the explicit inclusion of Christmas and church festivals at the centre of the season," and continued "the name 'Winterval' has since become used in the UK as shorthand for an attempt (real or, more commonly, imagined) to "rebrand" Christmas so as not to exclude non-Christians." (The second half of the sentence is still there). This is because the section as previously written implies that the view that Winterval was an attempt to rebrand Christmas is wrong. Not only is this original research, it is OR that doesn't make any sense. Supposing an organisation did indeed attempt to rebrand Christmas - they would need to include Christmas events and symbols within their new brand. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a rebranding of Christmas, it would just be something completely new.
I also note that the opening paragraph sets out the "The intention". It doesn't state whose intention this is, but I assume it means the intention of the people who introduced Winterval in Birmingham. Yet later on, the article states that the person responsible for the initiative in Birmingham intended it to be a "vehicle which could cover the marketing of a whole season of events", including Christmas events, as well as a brand. This might reasonably be seen by some people as "rebranding". I certainly don't suggest that the article should suggest it was an attempt to rebrand Christmas, but neither should it imply that such a suggestion is necessarily wrong. When it comes to setting out the "intention" of the people who introduced Winterval, surely it is best to stick to the words they actually used, which do seem to be all about brands and marketing vehicles? Hobson (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Despite" 

message: The new information about Waterford having a go at doing Winterval has been moved to the Legacy section; I'm not bothered about this in principle, but I'm not sure it matches the other content in that section; the other content is broadly discussing the negative fall-out from the Birmingham incident, whilst - at the time of writing - Waterford's use is a positive act, rather than a 'legacy' of the Birmingham fall-out. Which does make me think further about the article as a whole - as it currently is it's an article specifically about what Birmingham did in 1997 & 1998 and the media response to that. The addition of Waterford using the word makes me think a slight rewrite of the intro and general article headings is in order.Star-one (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Winterval. 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/20080316070109/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/press/display_press_release.php?prid=4542 to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/press/display_press_release.php?prid=4542
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-419740/Campaign-real-Christmas-Religious-leaders-unite-political-correctness.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2058830/Clarifications-corrections.html
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) 11:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified