Talk:Festivus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

older comments

Kudos to Chuq -- vandalism reverted within 7 minutes ("Americans are lame because they invent Festivus when a perfectly good Pagan holiday, the Winter Solstice, already exists"). - James, 16 Dec 2006

i was celebrating festivus before it was cool—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.17.183 (talk • contribs) 22:30, December 9, 2004

I love celebrating Festivus, but in recent years it has become an acceptable way to be a non-conformist. But there is a aluminum pole outside my house, much to the confusion and dismay of my neighbors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by slenderneck (talk • contribs) 01:04, December 20, 2004

Before you use this article to "exemplify Wikipedia's best work" maybe it should be made accurate. Both "Festivus miracles" were declared in the Costanza home. The bookie never saw Elaine at the Bagel shop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.249.231 (talk • contribs) 03:07, January 22, 2005

Instead of criticizing maybe you could correct the article. --Plicease 18:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually the article is correct, and the anonymous critic is in error. Both the video and the script show Kramer and Elaine together when they encounter the bookie at the Bagel shop. --Can'tStandYa 21:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Can we please not have this as a featured article? It will make us look as silly as the festival. --Stereo 18:49, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

• What? Do you mean to say that a featured article about a crappy band (Duran Duran) makes us look like musical cognoscenti? What's so wrong about featuring a growing phenomenon? Silly or not. —ExplorerCDT 18:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, I am not a Seinfeld fan, but as someone who has been invited to Festivus parties multiple times, I think it is a legitimate cultural phenomenon. I think the article reflects well on Wikipedia. --Plicease 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"A select group of employees"

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this section I'm about to delete is probably original research (Also, not NPOV):

"A select group of employees at the City of Key West have gathered to celebrate Festivus annually since 2001. To ensure that no taxpayer dollars are mis-spent, it is always a "bring your own lunch" affair. Festivus is an excellent holiday for government employees to celebrate, as it in no way encroaches on State or Federal regulations regarding the separation of church and state. Additionally, an aluminum pole is ideally suited to the tropical conditions of the southernmost city in the continental United States."69.139.130.223 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

fictional?

Is this holiday actually "fictional" (as noted in the article)? It seems that the holiday was real (albeit only celebrated by one family) before it was popularized by 'Seinfield'.--Clipdude 01:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Festivus Books

I have removed the sentences which speak of the books about festivus which appears in the introductory sentence. I don't believe this even deserves a discussion but since it has been added and removed repeatedly, I am asking for any reasonable excuse for leaving it at the beginning of this article.

The way I see it, placing references to a book (unless the article is actually about that book), or books, at the beginning of an article amounts to an advertisement for that book(s). Practically every wiki article has a book written about the subject but we certainly do not refer to these books at the beginning of each article, much less the introductory paragraph. - Ektar 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, move the references to the end. If someone insists on changing it, consider it vandalism then. References belong at the end of an article. TotalTommyTerror 21:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

I think it is pretty obvious that there are way too many external links in this article. So I am being bold and am removing most of them.

My reasons are plenty:

• A lot of the links have been added by anonymous users and serve only to direct traffic towards other sites (sites which promote festivus books, poles, etc.)
• Most of these links do not provide more information than is found in the article. (Story of Festivus and Festivus Links, Festivus FAQ, etc.)
• Do we really need to link to every newspaper or website that writes an article about Festivus? (New York Times, Louisville Courier-Journal, etc)
• Practically none of the links qualify for "What should be linked to" on the Wiki: External Links article.

I am reluctantly leaving a link to one of the script for "The Strike" since it was referenced in the article. I also feel the "Other references" section needs to be pared down, since I am sure that the list of Festivus references could go on forever. - Ektar 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe news articles, or at least one, covering the celebration of Festivus would be relevant, if only to demonstrate that the holiday actually exists outside Seinfeld. I'm with you on the rest of the links.--Inonit 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A news article sounds good to me. The only problem is see is that eventually articles are taken down and it will eventually be a dead link. But by then a new article could be found, I guess. The NY Times article seems good. - Ektar 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm equally skeptical about the Other references section for many of the same reasons you expressed regarding External links.--Inonit 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding external link to festivus.biz because it is an add free page that does not promote any product (books, poles, etc.) The link does provide more info that is not found in the main article, i.e. the Airing of Grievances Worksheet, the Feats of Strength Challenge Card. Additionally the site contains a Festivus in the News section which will help demonstrate that the holiday actually exists outside Seinfeld. The news section is a live rss feed that will also help alleviate the dead links concern. - Inic 19 December 2005

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I found the website "Festivus: The Holiday for the Rest of Us" pretty helpful. It is, afterall, about the holiday itself. And even though it pitches a book, the guy seems to have gone to a lot of effort to gather info about holiday. User:MarshallPoe:Marshall Poe 21 December, 2005.

First, thanks for actually bothering to discuss before adding a link. I agree that there is a lot of information at that site, but does its obvious commercial aspect outweight wikipedia's goal of remaining neutral. Amazon.com has a lot of information and reviews on the Canon EOS 350D but we do not link to them from the article because that would amount to an endorsement of a purchase via their site. I might not be as opposed to the festivusbook.com site if every other link added didn't also have an advertisement for the same book. I think at least we can agree that a link to the festivus wine and to a mp3 of a festivus song are respectively commercial and unnecessary. - Ektar 04:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The website Festivus: The Holiday for the Rest of Us adds significantly more information to the subject. It is not a commercial site. It has original information researched by the creator of the site, along with photos and other features, all of which are FREE. The link to the book is small and the 'store' section of the site is just one small part of it. In fact, the author of the book, who created the site, has said in interviews that he hopes no one orders anything from the store, that the store is on the site for his own research purposes to see if people spend money on a holiday that he advocates they do not spend money on. The book is a work of non-fiction journalism, not a guide capitalizing on Seinfeld. The creator of the site put significant effort into its accuracy and originality. His goal was to create the definitive Festivus website, a clearinghouse for everything Festivus. To not have that site listed here would do a disservice to those who are looking for information. (If any site should be removed it is the Festivus.biz site which is a commercial ploy that simply lifts information from other sources and does not contain original content. But that is not my main point here). In addition, the small mention of the book in the main Wikipedia Festivus entry does not explain what the book is. The festivusbook.com site offers, to those who are interested, an explanation of what the book is, a work of journalism about how people in the real world are celebrating Festivus. The author, Allen Salkin, is the main scholar of Festivus. Without his article in the New York Times and without the book, much of the information in the main Wikipedia entry would not be there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.101.244 (talk • contribs) 23:43, December 21, 2005

The fact that the information is "free" doesn't help because the information at ANY commercial site is "free." I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the store and book links are for "his own research purposes", but even if that were true, it STILL is commercial. I would like to see what others think of it, especially those who do not remain anonymous. I am 100% certain that the author has put significant effort into the site, but so has everyone working over at Amazon.com or any other commercial site. His work may have been referenced but that does not mean he deserves an advertisment on Wikipedia. And to say that much of the information in the main entry would not be here if it were not for him is untrue, since most of it can be learned by watching the episode and/or reading the script. In fact, anything outside the episode, could be better explained by the son of the holiday's inventor... in the OTHER book. I also feel the Festivus.biz site doesn't deserve to be listed (There isn't much more information there that isn't in this article), but since it has NO advertisements I am not as opposed to it as I am to the Festivusbook site. As an example, please see the Kwanzaa article's External Links section, and you will see that NONE of the linked sites have stores or large links that say "ORDER THE KWANZAA BOOK." About being a disservice to those are looking for information, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an avertisement vehicle or collection of links. The information present is encyclopedic enough, almost anything else should and can be found with a google search. - Ektar 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored festivusbook.com. There has been enough debate on this subject above to show that it is not at all clear that the inclusion of this link violates anything. In fact, it contains a lot of original content that is not in the book, things that could not be in the book including movies and songs and an updated calendar of Festivus events around the country. Quite simply, there is no other resource like this for those who are interested in Festivus. It is an important reference and anyone doing any research on this subject, academic or personal, would want this information. It makes this entry as encylopedic as it needs to be. I watch this entry often. I am the author of the book on Festivus and I do run the site festivusbook.com. Yes my site offers a link to buy the book from Amazon, but to be honest, I have sold very few books this way and the commericial aspect of the site is not its goal at all. NOT having a link to buy the book would be again denying a resource to those who are interested in the holiday. On wikipedia, it's only a matter of a few clicks from the ISBN number to a selection of sources to buy the book. There is little difference on Festivusbook.com. I am a professional journalist. If I was writing my first article about Festivus -- as many reporters still are -- I would want the wikipedia entry to include a link to festivusbook.com. It has valuable information. In addition, much of the information in the total Festivus entry comes from my book. An honest bibiliography would have to have festivusbook.com listed. Allensalkin 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted festivusbook.com as well as eliminating another link of dubious value. The inclusion of the link itself does not "violate anything," but in my view, it is not encyclopedic, is commercial (regardless of whether its author says it doesn't make very much money), and I reverted it for the reasons sited by Ektar and others above. As for Mr. Salkin, this is not a denigration of your site or contributions. But as Wikipedia:Vanity notes, "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." Good practice for all, I think.--Inonit 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who restored this link in the first place, nor who made the original argument that it belongs. This was not ever a "vanity" move. The "vanity" clause is irrelevant here because this article already was written without me. I don't need to promote Festivus itself. This article exists with or without me. My site, festivusbook.com was noticed by others and added to an already existing wikipedia entry. Thus, your cited reason for removing the link is not valid. As you say it's inclusion "does not violate anything." Festivus is an important and interesting topic and continually pruning the links is only limiting the article's usefullness. How is it not encyclopedic to have a link that shows people actually celebrating Festivus in short movie? Allensalkin 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about "links normally to be avoided" from Wikipedia:External links? "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Or "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content." The site is called "festivusbook.com." The first navigation link in the upper-left corner is a link to order the book. The first event in the calendar is the release of an audio version of the book. To argue that it doesn't exist primarily to sell things is an uphill climb. As for the home videos, see also the part that says (paraphrase) "don't link to forums or social networking sites." The fact that some of the people who read Wikipedia might like the site is not enough. See Wikipedia is not a web directory.--Inonit 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "store" has been removed completely from the festivusbook.com website. There is a small link to order the book from amazon but 99 percent of the site is additional reference material about Festivus. This is the only truly "living" festivus site, with grievances being aired, locations of new parties being shared, new rituals discussed. The author of the book is the leading authority on Festivus as it is being celebrated today. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikichutney (talk • contribs)

The festivusbook.com link was removed without discussion. The site has been fixed as suggested here and I added it back. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.181.174.146 (talk • contribs)

Site's most prominent subject matter is still a link to the book. Sockpuppet Wikichutney created as an alternative to previous user name AllenSalkin, the author of the book in question. Only pages sock puppet has edited are Festivus and (surprise) Allen Salkin. Reverting. Also reverting Google ads-promoter festivusweb.com (different author).--Inonit 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with inonit's war on festivusbook.com. I removed the store. I have shown that it is a place that demonstrates better than any other site by far that Festivus is a very much living holiday. People are airing grievances. There is lots of extra factual content not shown on wikipedia. Yes, the site also promotes my book, but the book also backs up much of what is in the wikipedia entry and expands on it, discussing history, the Festivus present in the real world and the future. The photo of the book takes up about 1 percent of the page. I totally agreed with removing festivusweb.com, which rips of both wikipedia and my book and is nothing but a google ads site with no original content. I am not related to that site in any way. It is true that I am not a regular editor of many wikipedia pages. I only focus on what I know about, but i have done small edits to a few other pages besides mine and Festivus. I have a great deal of respect for the wikipedia project and truly believe that festivusbook.com belongs. This is not a cynical play, and it is only one person now who is warring over this. I don't think festivuspoles.com or festivuswine.com should be here becauase they are pure commercial plays, but I AM the expert on Festivus, interviewed in newspapers and on TV all season long. And why leave the link to the St. Louis Festivus which is something for a shopping mall or something (and already happened)? My site is living and breathing Festivus. Please let it stay. -- Allen Salkin

No "war" here, just editorial judgment. Two neutral people (who have contributed far more broadly to Wikipedia) saying take it down, zero neutral people saying "leave it up." Wikipedia guidelines, cited above, are clear (from Wikipedia:External links): avoid links to "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. [Inonit: And I don't believe it meets those criteria] This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." [emphasis added] It could not be clearer. There are many people promoting Festivus merchandise this time of year, and several people start trying to add links this time of year, repeatedly and insistently. I don't think that serves the article, as Wikipedia is not a web directory.--Inonit 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the policy has been strengthened since last year's discussion of this. It now reads:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. [Inonit: and again I do not concede that it even meets this standard.]

If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines.

(emphasis added) See also the Conflict of interest guidelines. Again, this could not be clearer.--Inonit 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Four pillars of Festivus

'Since the root word of "Festivus" is "feast"' This is innacurate. FESTivus does not contain the word feAst, it comes from FEST, which is a word meaning celebration. I'm goign to remove this little intro. Just so you know. --Thaddius 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Feast, Fest, Fiesta, Festival, Festoon, but not fester, maybe the word fast, but probably not fasten...

The word "feast" has a long and interesting history... a little less than a thousand years ago it was "feste" (in both Middle English and Old French). Prior to that, the Romans used the word féstus. The "roots" of words rarely, if ever, have anything to do with the exact way they are spelled today. Think about how they sound, and then go out to dictionary.com and get your learn on!

"Festivus" comes from the same place as "feast"

Mel Lastman claim removed

I removed the claim about Mel Lastman and the Festivus child, per User:AndroidCat's astute catch of the claim. "mel lastman" + festivus hits 31 times on Google, never in a reliable form of this story. Good catch. Dylan 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it but didn't remove it because (as a Torontonian) I did vaguely remember a kid being found, who they named Festivus, and Mel Lastman (being the wild and crazy mayor that he was) might have declared a "National Holiday" over this Festivus Miracle, even if he couldn't declare holidays, national or otherwise. The trouble is, I remembered Festivus as an abandoned new-born who was found almost frozen but survived. If the 2001-12-24 date is correct, a trip to the library archives of the Toronto Star should sort it out. (Not high on my list of things to do, however.) AndroidCat 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Does this article really need the same picture twice? --Piratejesus 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Aluminium"

This is an American TV show and an American "holiday." There is no valid reason to use the British spelling for the element. --StarKruzr 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

its also the canadian spelling... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.141.153 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

opening paragraphs

Someone edited the start of the page and included a reference to "Faux Winter Solstice", which is complete bull crap. Problem is, I can't delete it, and it's not in the history. Can someone do something about it? 65.43.174.184 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

and, while i wrote this, it went away. Thanks. 65.43.174.184 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Other references

This seems to have evolved into a section of "I once heard about this guy who..." stories. Most of the bullet points, while interesting, have no citation and are unverifiable. The points are either [original research] or just plain hearsay. For example, "Artificial Christmas trees sometimes come with an aluminum component usable as a Festivus pole." What is this? Is this suggesting that you strip the tree of its fake folliage, or did a company actually make a tree with an optional Festivus pole? Either way, I think it's garbage and should be pulled along with a few of the other uncited bullet points. --Atomicskier 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed some vandalism from the bullet point about Wisconsin Gov. ("Seifield is also the best show ever!!!!?????") QuinnJL 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In the series Star Trek, episode "Return of the Arcons" (1967), the term was coined for the period when the planets inhabitents were "released" from the structure of Landru. Joseph E Fink jfink@hardee.k12.fl.us

No, that was "festival," not "Festivus." RobertAustin 13:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's The Return of the Archons (with an "h"). Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph about a "college tradition" from Australia. It seems incredibly self-serving to me. One town, one college, and only the male members of the "Top A floor"? That, I would say, is not worthy of Wikipedia. The one about the teacher in Canada is borderline, but this one just doesn't pass muster. I cut-pasted it below, if other believe I am wrong about this; the bullet point can be restored.

• Male members of the Top A floor of Earle Page College at the University of New England, Armidale, Australia, hold their own Festivus meeting, usually biannually, involving Feats of Strength, Airing of Grievances and a viewing of "The Strike" episode of Seinfeld. The Feats of Strength are beer related. This very Australian college tradition was instigated by Ryan Lindsay and was begun in 2001. For various reasons, no more about this version of Festivus may be disclosed.

I'm a noob, so I'm not going to edit the article, but if somebody wants to check up on this they may feel free to do so: A reference to the Baltimore Ravens referring to the NFL playoffs as "festivus" and the Super Bowl as "festivus maximus" in order to get around their coach's ban of the word "playoffs" may be found in Tom Matte's Tales From The Baltimore Ravens Sideline, (c) 2004 Sports Publishing LLC. Here's the specific retelling of the story from within the book (on Google Books).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.205.67 (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2006

Thanks for the source :) No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

US or worldwide?

The biggest thing missing from the article now is, how "real" is this holiday? How many people actually "celebrate" it, in which cities/countries, year by year? (Boston Globe, 18dec06, D14; Yes, Virginia, there is a Festivus; The 'Seinfeld'-fueled, secular pseudo-holiday has grown by leaps and bounds over 9 years) 69.87.203.130 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

Is this holiday real or fake? The way this page is written makes me think it's real. 68.55.208.141 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Probably because it is real. The holiday has existed for a long time, however it wasnt very popular. The Seinfeld episode vastly increased the popularityFrank Anchor 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Where "a long time" means "since 1966, in one family". The word is old, but the holiday isn't. (See Ancient Rome?.) However, since the Seinfeld episode many people have in fact taken it up. --Thnidu (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• As the article states, Festivus began in 1966 as a family observance. Seinfeld popularized Festivus as a winter holiday (to be observed in addition to or instead of Christmas, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, et al.) Over the years, it has grown into an observance that is widely recognized, if not as highly regarded. Example: for the last few years, the University of Alaska Anchorage has held a Festivus party during the winter break. It only loosely follows the Seinfeldian traditions, but just as importantly, it provides a non-religious reason for students to get together and have some fun when most of their peers have gone home to visit friends and family. In my personal experience, it seems that the holiday has been most popular among certain groups: (a) people who aren't particularly religious, (b) people whose social circles include people of many faiths, and (c) people who wish to distance themselves from the commercial frenzy that Christmas has become. Then again, part of the beauty of Festivus is that it is so inclusive, so anybody who wants to observe Festivus is allowed. -- A. (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Rome?

I remember reading somewhere on this article long ago that Festivus originated in ancient Rome or something. What happened to it? Huh (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in. Dunno why it was removed, as there was a reference and everything. Porkman Pork (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference is to a self-professed comedic site, and makes an assertion that doesn't seem plausible, and doesn't add enough background/specificity to be truly challenged or indeed useful. I didn't delete the reference, but I'm not sure it justifies the inclusion of the 'fact.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.1.250 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not true or properly referenced? Here is a useful recent article from the Chicago Tribune with in-depth information about Festivus, its true origins, and current reaction ten years on from its national introduction on Seinfeld. Oh, and in the holiday spirit, I've pre-assembled the cite tag for some industrious editor below. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brachear, Manya (2007-12-19). "Festiv'all for the rest of y'all". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved December 27, 2007.

I couldn't tell whether Dravecky meant "yes, it is ancient" or "no, it isn't ancient". The article s/he cites is clear: not ancient, unless 1966 is ancient: "But according to Allen Salkin, who wrote a book on Festivus, the holiday did not originate 10 years ago on the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. The first Festivus actually took place in the household of Reader's Digest writer Daniel O'Keefe in 1966. His son, Dan Jr., a writer for Seinfeld, simply borrowed it 30 years later." --Thnidu (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I've corrected the etymology, with citations to reliable online Latin-English dictionaries. Maybe the previous description was taken from the episode, but it was incorrect. --Thnidu (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Festivus Book

As the holiday was created by the O'Keefe family and then brought to the public's attention on the "Seinfeld" episode, it seem to me that the episodes traditions and holiday data should define what the holiday actually consists of. There is much mention on the page about the Festivus Book, and it seems the book just made-up Festivus rules outside of the existing criteria from the family stories and the Seinfeld episode. Weight should be given, IMHO, to the original data and not add-ons by other sources unless they take hold over many years as respected traditions of the holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article?

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this does not deserve to be a featured article. The bulk of this article consists of Seinfeld quotes and a list, and the original material isn't particularly well written (sorry, it's Festivus - this is my airing of grievances). However, as a celebrator of Festivus, I'd like to see this featured.

I realize this may sound dumb, but bear with me: Is this article about Festivus or about the Seinfeld episode that featured Festivus? There should certainly be plenty written about Seinfeld, but really, do we need to know that Kramer was working at H&H? Or the 'Festivus miracles' (they're called 'gags')?

I think we should get the blatant fanboy stuff out. But that's just me. I'm going to make one change I feel is safe here ('modern observances of Festivus tend to feature heavy drinking, including beer, rum, bourbon, or wine.'...When four varieties of alcohol are 'featured,' I think 'heavy drinking' will suffice.) I think featured articles should be able to compete with or outdo 'professional' encyclopedia articles; would this ever be in Britannica? --Marco Passarani (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As the holiday was publicly brought forward by Dan O'Keefe on the Seinfeld episode, the quotes and references to the show and its historical descriptions of how to celebrate it and how it was originated seem appropriate in the article. I too, as the comment below and as this comment implies, want to see more about the original O'Keefe family tradition, but as of yet I don't have a copy of O'Keefe's book. As for the heavy drinking, toned it down to alcohol use, as no alcohol was served at the Festivus dinner on Seinfeld. And you know, there's really no reason to mention alcohol except for the fact that one of the dinner's guests brought his own hip flask. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Too centered on Seinfeld

I'd like to hear more about the actual Festivus, not the episode that popularized it. The article alludes to the original practices but it ends there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.221.57 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that since the way that MOST people celebrate Festivus is based on knowledge from Seinfeld, it makes sense to include this information. I think that MORE about the original is a good idea, but that all of the info on the Seinfeld episode should also stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.45.0 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic is also addressed in the section directly above this one, entitled 'Featured article?' Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What I assume you mean by "the actual Festivus" was celebrated sporadically by one family. While it's of interest as a precursor to the Seinfeld version, the latter is the one that's taken off. The Seinfeld version is the only one that's had any significant impact in its own right, and the only one actually celebrated by an awful lot of people. In short, the Seinfeld version may not be the original Festivus, but it certainly is "the actual Festivus," and it's the one that deserves to be focused on. Shmuel (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Although there is a disagreement by some over the date of Festivus, the date, December 23rd, was set by its template, the previously discussed Seinfeld show. Randy Kryn 2:36, 10 December 2010

Washington state

I removed the Washington State part of the pop culture section, as both of the references were dead links. If anyone has any sources about Freedom From Religion Foundation's request to display a pole and Christine Gregoire's denial of said pole, feel free to reinstate what I removed.Tricadex (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

December 23rd

There have been edits which say the holiday can be celebrated any day of the year. The template of Festivus is the Seinfeld Show. It established all of the symbols (the aluminum pole, the dinner, the airing of grievences, the concept of Festivus miracles). And it established the date, December 23rd. Anyone writing a book or an article which changes the date, or the composition of the pole, or a change in the Seinfeld script itself, is doing so outside of the established boundries of the holiday. July 4 in the United States cannot be referenced as being celebrated on October 12, no matter who writes a book about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:28, 10 December 2010

Says who? If this were the article about the Seinfeld episode "The Strike", then the observance of Festivus in that episode would be the only thing that's relevant. However, in an article about the extra-Seinfeld holiday, including both its pre-Seinfeld origins in the co-writer's family, and its post-Seinfeld celebrations by others, it makes no sense at all to confine it to the script of that episode. Certainly there are those who now celebrate it on more convenient dates. All that matters is that claims made here be supported by reliable sources.

I would also note in passing that if a significant number of people celebrated U.S. Independence Day on October 12th, and this was well-documented, this would of course be mentioned in the article in question. Wikipedia is not concerned with how holidays should be celebrated, but how they are. Shmuel (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is how religion goes to shite - with people wanting to set dates, rules and all that other crap. Celebrate it whenever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.16.144 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.40.1.129, 23 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The photo caption reads the Seinfeld character name as Frank Constanza. However the name is Frank Costanza.

204.40.1.129 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been done; as of now, it says, The character of Frank Costanza invented  Chzz  ►  22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nonstandard, 24 December 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}} Third paragraph of the page, "non-commerical" should be "non-commercial" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonstandard (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 December 2010

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Just so you know, you are autoconfirmed (having at least 10 edits and being at least 4 days' registered), and so can edit semi-protected pages such as this one with using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Happy holidays! Intelligentsium 03:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)