Jump to content

Talk:Thanksgiving (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.143.217.186 (talk) at 15:20, 25 November 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The French calvinist were Spaniards ?

Text says : "The first documented thanksgiving services in territory currently belonging to the United States were conducted by Spaniards in the 16th century.[20][21] "

But when one reads the source of [21] one reads :

"Landing in balmy Florida in June of 1564, at what a French explorer had earlier named the River of May (now the St. Johns River near Jacksonville), the French émigrés promptly held a service of “thanksgiving.” "

Do we have to conclude that the French in 1564 were Spaniards? (Obviously, not...)

POV and/or COI

Is it me, or did User:NJGW remove images from this article in effort to support his own POV? Given his username, NJ"GW," and his comment "what does Bush and Iraq have to do with Thanksgiving," I'm thinking that this user is anti-Bush and removed the images to benefit his own opinion of Bush rather than to benefit the encyclopedia. I don't know; I could be wrong, but it seems suspicious to me given that he has been blocked for 3RR before, and 3RR blocks sometimes indicate a user tht can't help but to attempt to make his/her own opinion dominate. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the vast majority of Americans wish to erase Bush from their memory, and for good reason. Certainly the annual pardoning of the turkey gets enough play in the article already; started with Truman, bla bla bla... Abductive (reasoning) 21:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The TP's are not for your personal WP:SOAP or a forum. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIM controversy

I think that the American Indian Movement's views on Thanksgiving should be duly acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.117 (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Including the views of a group that 99.9% of people of the world have never heard of, which basically consists of "Plymouth Rock landed on us", would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I suggest finding sources that show some Thanksgiving legends are the product of white guilt or whitewashing. Abductive (reasoning) 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if 99.9% of people or whatever fake statistic you made up haven't heard of them? In case you didn't notice they're sort of a fundamental part of the story. The Flat Earth society example in the link you gave doesn't apply in the same way. And I know you're going to say that no, it was a pocket of a language group of a broader spectrum of peoples. But the remaining tribes are made to carry the weight of the legend. Not all is peachy in your Thanksgiving country. At any rate, I acknowledge the mention of the protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.41.204 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article, as it stands today is one of the worst examples of writing on Wikipedia about a major US holiday, it's full of historical inaccuracies and seems to cater more to the myth that Americans would like to construct about 'thanksgiving' than the reality. And AIM? Anyone who is even remotely concerned with native american issues in any scholarly way knows about AIM. This article is a literal whitewash, with a white family having a white dinner celebrating their whiteness. We might as well rename this article White Supremacist Thanksgiving.--66.234.52.131 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I fully and completely agree that a Native American perspective and point of view should and needs to be represented in this atrocious article. It is a very good and strong point that since Native Americans are a huge part of "Thanksgiving" traditional beliefs and stories, the very very least you can do is include a section that informs the reader of Native Americans that strongly oppose and even mourn this holiday. Where I come from we call it "Black Thursday" and fast, it is a day of mourning for all of the Indigenous Americans that were slaughtered during the so called "first thanksgivings". There is even hard proof left in letters and documents by white colonist "leaders" describing the massacre of severely ill Indigenous people who were dwindling in numbers, in one case reduced by nearly 90%. There is a written account by the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony about how they slaughtered about 700 Indians who were celebrating their annual Green Corn Dance which was taken as a war dance and preparing to attack the white colony and how he, the governor proclaimed that day as a day of thanksgiving to god for allowing them to slaughter so many Indigenous people. Just as there were more than one so called "first thanksgivings" there were also more than one massacres of Indigenous people that coincide with the so called days of thanksgiving.

Here are some links that will explain some but not all of the stories about pilgrims, Indigenous americans and thanksgiving: http://www.republicoflakotah.com/2009/cooking-the-history-books-the-thanksgiving-massacre/ Also: http://www.manataka.org/page269.html This Wikipedia page may also offer some insight even though it is not yet a fully completed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Mourning_%28United_States_protest%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheaSandy (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least take the time to read them as it is the perspective of most Native Americans who, as pointed out earlier are a huge part of the "Thanksgiving" story.

To sum things up: There should At Least be a section dedicated to the Native American aspect and view of this so called day of thanks. I am sure if this section is approved proper citations can and will be provided. In the mean time I will be looking for a copy/ photo copy of the accounts that were written at the time of these events. Thank you/miigwech for your honest and open minded consideration. Zoongitozi (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" Americans?

Is there objective evidence that the majority of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving by "gathering at home with family or friends for a holiday feast"? I hope it's true, but having worked at a homeless shelter in a poor neighborhood I can definitely say that there are a lot of Americans who don't do that. SnappingTurtle (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Abductive. I think homeless people DO meet their friends and "family" in shelters to celebrate Thanksgiving. Vamiranda (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information about presidential pardon

{{editsemiprotected}} According to the below website, since 2004 the two pardoned turkeys have been hosted at a Disney park. The turkeys alternate years between living in Disneyland in California and at the Magic Kingdom in Florida.

http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/26/president-bush-pardons-turkeys-to-be-sent-to-disneyland/2978/

 Not doneI fail to see how this small tidbit of information at all enhances the reader's knowledge. I am also sceptical of any source with "blogging" in the URL. Intelligentsium 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly remember this happening. Here are a few articles. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/11/19/Turkey-not-invited-to-Disneyland/UPI-86261290201685/ http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWywLGIp6RL25EVN9gvkXFUAphfg?docId=CNG.df2a4d2f00f0c5f1a1eb1fddae867df7.c11

However, I simply take issue that blogging isn't a good source of information and shouldn't be offhandedly dismissed.Chopstickkitty (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Gioia?

An elementary school teacher isn't an authority on history. Would someone please remove the reference to her? 94.37.244.161 (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgkatonk (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is ridiculous. Writerofstuff (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Thanksgiving

Folks, the concept of the "First Thanksgiving" that the article purports is not factual. That fact that it is "traditional" only makes it appropriate to state as "traditional." The formal U.S. celebration only started in 1863. Yes there had been celebrations before then but I don't think there is evidence of a continuous celebration that goes back directly to the Plymouth colony. To the extent that the article discusses the Plymouth colony this should be discussed as a traditional inspiration and not as the "first" in the line of celebrations leading to the modern one. That is certainly not an accurate depiction.

With regard to other "first" Thanksgivings at Jamestown, at St. Augustine, and other locations, these IMHO are stretching a bit. In terms of the "history" I would argue that these along with the Plymouth should all be mentioned in a general collective sense but trying pin any of these as the beginning of the modern celebration I don't think can be backed up by historical records. Again, discussing the fact that these inspired the modern celebration is worthwhile but only with references that discuss this "inspiration."

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of expediency, let me suggest some revised text.
For the second paragraph in the intro:
Thanksgiving observances in the U.S. take on a variety of forms. Typically they involve a large meal served in the midday with turkey as the main coarse. Other traditional foods include stuffing, sweet potato, and pumpkin pie. A prayer has generally been considered one of the most important parts of the celebration though strictly secular celebrations occur as well.
The modern celebration is commonly attributed as a commeration of an observance of that took place at the Plymouth Colony in 1621. Having arrived in 1620 in what is modern New England, a group of settlers, religious pilgrims from England, endured a brutal winter in which half the colony perished. With help from Native Americans the colony was able to survive. The colony of devout Christians held a celebration of gratitude to God for the harvest the following autumn.
--Mcorazao (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For additional information on the first Thanksgiving please investigate the following website: http://petermarshallministries.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.103.108 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===>

The second paragraph conflates two distinct events into one.

First event, the harvest feast of 1621 (aka 'The First Thanksgiving'). In autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims entertained and feasted Wampanoag Indians for three days celebrating their first successful harvest. The Pilgrims did not call this event 'Thanksgiving.' The Pilgrims owed their survival to the aid given to them by the Wampanoag people(see http://www.pilgrimhall.org/1stthnks.htm and http://www.pilgrimhall.org/f_thanks.htm ) The Wampanoag showed the starving Pilgrims how to use New World crops and how to work the land. This feast is what is traditionally re-enacted by American families every year on Thanksgiving Day dinner.

Second event, the first record of a religious thanks-giving in Plymouth took place on November 29, 1623 in response to a providential rainfall.

These two articles give a rather succinct history http://www.pilgrimhall.org/f_thanks.htm and http://www.helium.com/items/2014761-the-father-of-thanksgiving-how-william-bradford-started-an-american-tradition and help to clearly delineate between the two events - one secular and the other religious.

I suggest that the existing paragraphs 1 & 2 be scrapped completely and replaced with some variation of the following:

"In early autumn of 1621, the 53 surviving Pilgrims set about preparing a celebration of their successful harvest, as was the English custom. Amongst other recreations, they started shooting off their arms, at which point some 90-odd Wampanoag Indians arrived along with their greatest King Massasoit. The Pilgrims entertained and feasted the Indians for three days. The Indians went out and killed five deer which they brought back to the plantation and delivered to Governor Bradford, the Captain and others.(1) That 1621 celebration is remembered as the "First Thanksgiving in Plymouth." The Pilgrims did not call this harvest festival a "Thanksgiving." To them, a Day of Thanksgiving was purely religious. The first recorded religious Day of Thanksgiving was held in 1623 in response to a providential rainfall." (this is just a rough draft...it's late....I'm going to bed....)

(1)Edward Winslow, Mourt's Relation : "our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."- Edward Winslow, Mourt's Relation Chopstickkitty (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the introduction it says "The event that Americans commonly call the "First Thanksgiving" was celebrated to give thanks to God for guiding them safely to the New World." So, who is "them?" Yes, I know the next sentence names the putative participants, but that doesn't help with the reference "them" in the first sentence. Wjl2 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration states: "On September 28, 1789, just before leaving for recess, the first Federal Congress passed a resolution asking that the President of the United States recommend to the nation a day of thanksgiving. A few days later, President George Washington issued a proclamation naming Thursday, November 26, 1789 as a "Day of Publick Thanksgivin" - the first time Thanksgiving was celebrated under the new Constitution. Subsequent presidents issued Thanksgiving Proclamations, but the dates and even months of the celebrations varied." [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/thanksgiving/

Quote?

The blockquote that contains this passage

and to prosper the Means of Religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth "in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.

does not have a closing quote at the end of that paragraph, and the blockquote continues with another paragraph. I didn't add it, since it's part of a quotation, but I wonder if it's lost here or needs a [sic] instead, or the apparent opening quote removed? —Długosz (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest of 1623 and land distribution

{{editsemiprotected}} The article is currently overly pro-capitalist when it states that private land ownership caused the increased harvest. See http://www.sail1620.org/history/articles/123-land-allotments.html for a discussion of the problems of Bradford's History. When the land records are researched, one sees that private land ownership didn't take off until 1627. Thus the increased harvest can not be attributed to capitalism in the same way the lesser harvests can not be blamed on communal farming. Anna82883 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used to allow non-autoconfirmed users to make specific changes to a semiprotected article. If you have a specific change in mind, please capture it in a 'please change X to Y' level of detail. Happy holiday! Celestra (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year later and I see I am not the only person who saw a political undercurrent in the phrasing of that paragraph. Quite frankly it sounds a bit tea partyish (modern, not historical) to attribute one years famine and anothers years growth to "privatized farming". The NYtimes (yes I know, bias) has a nice write up about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html
Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth, and their supporters in England, did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.
“It was directed ultimately to private profit,” said Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and the deputy director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum devoted to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive.
The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving. “The celebration would never have happened if the harvest was going to be less than enough to get them by,” Mr. Pickering said. “They would have saved it and rationed it to get by.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.236.230 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a travesty to equate the words of the article, "privatized farming" (now with 2 sources) with the words you used, "private land ownership." The article never stated, now or in 2009, that there was a land ownership causing the better harvest, rather.... the truth is that colonists were originally working in a huge group.... but 1623 they worked their own plots. I remember discussing this in school, so I doubt it is too politically charged to print it here.
In any case, have you bothered to see how "overly pro-capitalist" the entire situation was in 1620 to 1627 by reading the 2 sources? The colonists were practically indentured to their creditors in England until the colony produced a profit. They were individually and mutually responsible for the colony's productivity. Bradford wrote his treatise about the incident to show how he felt God hated communal slothfulness. He apparently thought strongly that when people were given the choice to work for their own good that they worked harder than if they were working for "other men's wives and children without any recompense." But we have the following list of things that Bradford said caused the better harvest:
  1. God's goodness and mercy
  2. the switch from communal to privatized crop management (Bradford's idea)
  3. prayer and fasting (again, Bradford's idea)
  4. rain
So are we needing to be equally critical for the other aspects? If #2 is "pro-capitalist" then #1 and #3 are "pro-religion" and #4 is hopefully non-debatable. Bradford was showing clearly his belief system, which I will overly simplify:
The colony was able to survive based on the actions of hard-working people coupled with a God who was favorable to them. The human factor and the goodness of God. Bradford saw so little cohesion in the group on certain matters (like farming) that he attributed an increase of work (the human effort) in 1623 to the exciting idea of farming individual plots (which was Bradford's idea). He further thought that since the human effort increased, that God's goodness also did.
So I would agree with the [1] article in that land was not owned until 1627 and that capitalism had little to do with privatized farming. Where I disagree is that Bradford did have a real reason to prefer the privatized farming and that it really happened as he said it did... he felt that it caused greater land utilization, even for the whole colony, because of better management by individuals tending to their own. He intertwined this with God's providence.
Furthermore, Bradford was a bad capitalist when it came to money. In 1630, the Warwick Patent was made out in Bradford's name and he could have become the sole proprietor for all of Plymouth. He instead let the original pilgrims share this patent, and eventually in 1640 he got the Old Comers to put ownership into the hands of all the freemen of the colony. He ended up selling a lot of his personal property (along with Standish and others) to pay off the debt in 1648. Sounds like he was very much into the commonwealth idea?
Read the text yourself: [2]
You can see in those 2 paragraphs that Bradford was not pro-capitalism so much as he hated the thought of corrupting the relationships between hard work and self-attaining. (Capitalism is a monetary system; he speaks of a moral and familial and work ethic/responsibility system.) It tore at the respect men and women had for labor and how each family should be responsible for their own... because if a man worked extra hard and his own family didn't get anything extra because of it, Bradford reasoned it was against the course God had set. In fact, Bradford causes most of his points to be made by the comments and thoughts of unnamed pilgrims, as if he was merely repeating their aversion to communalism. I like to saw logs! (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone please remove "and Flanagan " from the first sentence of the "Giving Thanks" section? Looks like Machoking6 felt like sticking that in there.

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone please delete last table in the page

The last table in this page says "row 1, col1", it is just an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.75 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday

Black Friday is considered[by whom?] to be the start of the Christmas shopping season.

I think we can take out the "by whom" since it's pretty common knowledge that it's the start of the holiday shopping season. I'm not really sure why someone would even add that tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.221.54 (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==

I do not think the term "Black Friday" is used only by those who object to the day's commercialization. Quite the opposite in fact. This assertion is uncited. 99.33.85.33 (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current link on the first mention (and possibly others) of turkey goes to the country, not the bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.149.62 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"God" versus "the Christian God"

At 13:29, 30 November 2009, Underpants replaced "God" by "the Christian God" in the first paragraph of the introduction. His comment was:

"God" here doesn't refer to a Jewish God or Islamic God... the Pilgrims and Puritans in the New England Colonies were Christian[.]

I disagree with Underpants' change and I have changed it back.

Yes, the Pilgrims were Christian. They were also Protestant (and Calvinist). Should we say that Thanksgiving existed to give thanks to the Protestant God? I see no evidence that Thanksgiving was proclamed for the purpose of accentuating sectarianism of any kind.

Many Presidents of the United States have issued Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations (see http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc.htm). All of them mention God, but none mentions Christianity or Jesus Christ. Every one of the Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations is interfaith in nature, being as suitable to be embraced by Jews and Muslims (and other religions) as by Christians.

Wideangle (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly agree - Xns believe their deity to be the same deity as the Hebrew deity, and most think Allah is also just another name for the same deity. However, Cleveland and McKinley both used Christian-specific language, while Nixon mentioned "Judeo-Christianity". Ford had one that did not mention any deity--JimWae (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think originally this was the Christian God. I am sure in present day, many people give thanks to various deities. So I think Christian God is appropriate when talking about the origins of Thanksgiving, and just God when talking about more recent events and present day. :)Djomac (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new section: Thanksgiving myths

From the article:

Some of the details of the American Thanksgiving story are myths that developed in the 1890s and early 1900s as part of the effort to forge a common national identity in the aftermath of the Civil War and in the melting pot of new immigrants.

But the history portion of the article completely focuses on the *true* stories of thanksgiving, and doesn't tell the reader what the myths actually *are.* This is likely an oversight, since most editors of this page are probably American, and have had the myths repeatedly drummed into their heads. I actually came here looking for the myths, as I know they exist and that there are common grade-school plays etc based on them, but I don't know what the generally-accepted story actually is. Could someone with more knowledge on the subject please summarise the "Thanksgiving Story" as repeated to American grade-schoolers? moink (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the myth of stupid black hats with brass buckles on them? You could easily research the fact that nineteenth century folks thought it would be cute (er, quaint) to have Pilgrims dress goofy like that. I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"true" First Thanksgiving

The article states that the "true First Thanksgiving" was in 1619; which I believe to be false. The day of thanksgiving celebrated by the new arrivals at Berkeley Hundred was to give thanks for their arrival, and (from what I can tell) has nothing to do with the Thanksgiving currently celebrated in the United States - other than its name. I also believe the line "It is ironic that this iconic event is generally referred to as the "First Thanksgiving", because, in reality, it was not, since it came two years after the true first Thanksgiving that was celebrated in Virginia." to be against Wikipedias NPOV guidelines. --DraconianDebate (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for 1777 declaration

The 1777 proclamation doesn't have a cite, and people on the Internet (and in history) have a way of adding things in, so I wanted to be sure it is the actual text from the original source.

The original handwritten text of Samuel Adams is published in the Papers of the Cotinental Congress, Reports of Committees No 24, pages 431-432. I found a copy of the microfilm online at http://www.footnote.com/image/#450238

Could someone who is skilled in citing add that in? (or find a more appropriate copy if it is problematic)69.37.3.221 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious observance?

Does the Catholic Church, for example, celebrate Thanksgiving as a festivity? If so, is it of obligation? I see that religious observance doesn't seem to be the central point of the holiday, but I actually cannot imagine it totally without. I'm German and in Germany, even German Unity and Labor Day are somewhat religiously "observed" for those who go to Church then, which is, however, not of obligation. But Thanksgiving seems to have an even more religious content. --84.154.91.193 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thanksgiving is a national US/Canadian holiday, not a Catholic holiday as with St. Patrick's Day or Christmas. I don't believe the Church has any official position on the holiday. The holiday originated as an expression of gratitude to God for the bountiful harvest, but now it can be and is usually celebrated as a general secular expression of gratitude. — CIS (talk | stalk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious neutrality

Should mention that a prominent feature of modern Thanksgivings is that they're semi-vaguely quasi-religious in nature, but not limited to any one religion or religious denomination... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==> Based on what? I am not aware that Thanksgiving as celebrated by Americans is remotely religious in nature. Take a look at the Macy's parade, is there a god on parade? Take a look at the food served - none of the traditional dishes have any religious connotation - but are purely based on New World foods and cuisine. Perhaps, as some have suggested, churches do time sermons with the theme of 'Thanksgiving', savvy ministers do this all the time in order to stay relevant to current events, but the way I see it what's going on are two separate things. First, Americans celebrating a secular Thanksgiving which is based on the theme of the Indians saving the Pilgrims from starvation - which has been THE theme predominant theme for decades if not since it became a national holiday, and second, religiously motivated people who want to pre-suppose a religious theme to nearly any and all activities - particularly to support the idea of America's 'exceptionalism.'

==>My own experiences of celebrating Thanksgiving while attending 12 years in religious schools is that not once was any god, let alone the Pilgrim's god, thanked. The theme was ALWAYS the local Indians saving the Pilgrims by teaching them how to survive in America and the Pilgrim's thanked the Indians by inviting them to a feast. During these 12 years I also attended Episcopalian and Catholic masses 3-4 times a week and never did any priest or minister stray from the message of the Pilgrims giving thanks to anyone but the Indians. The message was always one of community and brotherhood, helping others' in need.

==> The fact is that there is both a history of the religious 'giving thanks' as well as the secular world 'giving thanks' - the religious - first and foremost to their god for all things, and the secular - to sharing nature's bounty via brotherhood and community (such as the Wampanoag Indians aiding the Pilgrims). It certainly seems inappropriate to try to conflate the two. One can never forget that 'Christian' holidays - including Thanksgiving - has early roots that trace back to agricultural festivals and not Christian religious 'events.'

==>I would advise the approach of separate and not equal. The national holiday is a secular holiday, regardless of whether a president or a minister decides to push a religious message as they so often seem to want to do in an effort to appeal - not to all Americans - but to their supporters. I certainly believe in the interest of accuracy, neutrality and fact their needs to be clear delineation of these two themes.

==>One certainly can't ignore that 'Thanksgiving Day' coincides with the ancient history of harvest festivals, the autumnal equinox (which dates to the beginning of Earth), and this was something that Congress was fully aware of at the time. 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Chopstickkitty (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I am skeptical as well; I don't even know what "semi-vaguely quasi-religious" is supposed to mean (I guess the phrase itself is as wishy-washy as can be). I can't see anything religious in it — unless, of course, one would count Americanism as a religion... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this is a non-denominational day of giving thanks, but that doesn't mean it has become a secular holiday. If the comments above speak to personal experience, it has been mine that even the most "non-church-going" person I have celebrated with would still acknowledge a divine supreme being in a Judeo-Christian sense on this day of national pause for giving thanks. I concede that our culture has become increasingly secular and relativistic, but I am certainly *not* the only person at service on the morning of Thanksgiving. It would be interest to see how many people attend religious services at a church on this day in the US and contrast that with how many people take time this day to pray to God in thanksgiving in a religious, but less organized way. My hunch is that the 78.4% Christians in the U.S. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports may not do the former but certainly many of them do the latter. Even the preamble or summary includes a secularist jab associating religious with possibly more structure... "The New England colonists were accustomed to regularly celebrating 'thanksgivings'—days of prayer thanking God for blessings such as military victory or the end of a drought, though the 1621 events were likely not a religious observation." this last part "though the 1621 events..." instantly made me wonder, "If (lowercase) thanksgivings were such a regular occurrence, why would they leave thanking God out of a three day celebration where they had abundant food?" This section purports to be a cited source. However, checking the referenced source of Encyclopedia Brittanica online, the the first part is a direct quote without proper quotations... and the part about it "likely not a religious observation" is not present and must be conjecture or opinion. I move that this third sentence in the second paragraph be properly shown in quotation marks and the misleading non-referenced part, "though the 1621 events were likely not a religious observation" be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.204.66 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Oppose suggesting that Ronald Reagan's presidential pardon of the Thanksgiving Turkey was to turn attention away from the Iran-Contra scandal. That is an opinion, not a fact, and adds nothing to the content of the article on the history of Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Bow (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving (United States) → Thanksgiving (U.S. holiday) —The current disambiguation actually leaves things pretty ambiguous as to what Thanksgiving is. Is it a United States? Or a United States holiday?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"there are always big celebrations in London..." Really? I live in London and I've never seen any. It's not a holiday celebrated by the English, for good reason. Jonchapple (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the US Embassy on Grosvenor Square, and other places (pubs etc.) popular with US expats. Also, some unis have America-themed celebrations. The Celestial City (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture

As famous as the painting might be, is it really appropriate to put the most stereotyping, offensive choice into the infobox? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have a suggestion of a better pic from Commons? No matter what, Thanksgiving and the way the famous paintings depict it are never going to be politically correct. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to switch the two paintings... the one below (1914, Brownscombe) is not as blatantly offensive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter to me. There are rampant inaccuracies in both. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but at least the savages aren't kneeling in front of the Superior White Man. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're sitting, not kneeling, and the Brownscombe painting has them sitting also, but at least, some of the chiefs are sitting at the table. So, perhaps that is the better choice as the lead pic. Like I said above, nothing to do with Thanksgiving is going to be politically correct or accurate. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) (Addm.) Changed pic. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People will read offense into anything, won't they? Powers T 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course. Thanksgiving is a hotbed of opportunity. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info, and outdated author citation, for timing of 1623 resupply ship(s) and "first" Plymouth Thanksgiving

Why is William Deloss Love being used as support for an easily discoverable error - the claim that the 1623 Plymouth Thanksgiving happened before (prior to) the arrive of important resupply vessels (like the Anne). This is perhaps an attempt to "prove" more strongly that this ceremony was in thanksgiving for reinvigorate capitalism rather than for life saving goods and, more importantly, for spirit renewing new eager recruits (warm bodies and strong heart, etc.) to the colony after several years of terrible casualties.

Quote in question from Thanksgiving article using author:


"William DeLoss Love calculates that this thanksgiving was made on Wednesday, July 30, 1623, a day prior to the arrival of a supply ship with more colonists,[12] but prior to the harvest."


Well, William DeLoss Love wrote his study in 1895. Hmm, there has been serious work over the last one hundred years (plus) that has been unable to substantiate his calculation here. So, there were two key vessels - the Anne and the LIttle James - that multiple sources say arrive in July, about a week apart. Now, if we take William Deloss Love at his word, and this Thanksgiving was held, on the 30th!, a day before a supply ship arrived... fine, but then one of the pair had to (no way around it) have arrived the week *before* the Thanksgiving, still to be arriving in the month of July, as both ships are claimed to have. Thus, this part of the entry is wrong and misleading. I suspect is serves a political purpose more than anything else, hence the citation of an obscure work from the late 19th century.

Note: there are even early texts that claim that the ship Anne arrived as early as late June, followed by the ship Little James in July, only "a week or ten days later." Which would put both well before William DeLoss Love's Thanksgiving date of 30 July. But I have chosen to be kind and assume he is just wrong, not horribly wrong, and I will assume that the person who added this citation also did not mean to mislead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.9.182 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mr. 86.166.9.182, if that is your real name! I used the cite (and it is real) without knowing about any alleged debate, but since you used no cite for what you said, how will we know what to write in lieu of July 30? The purpose of the Love citation was not for wickedness, policalness, or misleadingness.... but because this guy gave at least some date... I don't know if it matters if his date was correct... the point was that he is a good source for Bradford's proclamation (besides Bradford himself).
Let me school you a little. First, using references based solely on Bradford's writing is not the ideal source, since he is an eye witness to the events. Secondary sources, critical sources, and compilation sources are better for certain types of statements. Bradford was very persuasive and matter-of-fact, even though he may have embellished or interpreted things with a biased point of view. This is why Love's work is a great source because he ties other contemporary sources into Bradford's to corroborate his History.
The main point that Love has in this article is this: "In Love's opinion, this 1623 thanksgiving was significant because the order to recognize the event was from civil authority, (Governor Bradford) and not from the church, making it likely the first civil recognition of Thanksgiving in New England."
That is irrefutable, since that is the opinion of Love... What difference does it make if Love's date was wrong? It was sometime in 1623.
Oh, and you can read Love's book on Google. Now, go provide the sources that give some other day or some other possible interpretation of the events. I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foods of the Season - suggested edits

paragraph 1. Thanksgiving Dinner/food is plays not a 'large' role but the 'central' role in celebrating Thankgiving. Suggest changing 'large' to 'central.'

makes sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph 2. 'New World foods' are traditionally served. Suggest replace 'certain kinds of foods' with New World foods - a technically superior description. Chopstickkitty (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

already done earlier; makes sense, too. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality sought throughout

There are quite a few instances where this article fails the neutrality requirement. Specifically any use of the word 'God' which is not a quote of an original document should be changed to 'their god' or 'one's god' as appropriate.Chopstickkitty (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hm. The question is why? I cannot think of any instance where those who actually do worship God in this context would not capitalize the word that references the entity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has a stated goal of neutrality - hence, not interjecting your faith. Your comment "I cannot think of any instance where those who actually do worship God..." reveals a religiously motivated opinion on your part that there is only one god and that the word 'god' should be capitalized to make your point. There are many different people on this planet practicing many different belief systems. Some religions have many gods, some have one god, some have no god. Of course, there are people with no religion, agnostics, deists, atheists and more. When writing, religious people capitalize the word 'god' to show their reverence for their god and to proclaim their faith. Sometimes they capitalize the 'g', i.e., 'God,' sometimes they capitalize all three letters, i.e., 'GOD.' Regardless, they are compelled to reveal their faith by giving this word special treatment. At that point they have introduced their own biased opinion and have veered from staying neutral.Chopstickkitty (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The capitalized form God refers specifically to the deity in monotheism; as such, the original motivation of Thanksgiving was to give thanks to exactly that deity (in quoting me, you left out "in this context", which I placed deliberately). While such religious motivations have lost their prominence for the present celebrations, those who do invoke a deity do so with a monotheistic background. Or can you give evidence of any large-scale celebrations of Thanksgiving in the United States with a polytheistic context? (Note that one or two Hindu families would not meet the notability threshold here) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Thanksgiving Day is a religious ceremony? There is a religious activity of setting aside a day or time to give thanks through prayer which is also called 'thanksgiving' (saying a prayer before or after eating a meal is also a form of 'thanksgiving', however, the traditional American Thanksgiving Day is a cultural harvest festival and is secular - not religious. That politicians have conflated the two is a good example of pandering to a particular group of constituents. Thanksgiving Day is generally celebrated by all Americans - not just Christians - it isn't considered a religious holiday. And again, the point is that neutrality is what's needed. Being an objective observer. The references outside of quoted text should remain neutral as a matter of Wikipedia policy. Looking at several references - dictionaires and even Wikipedia's definition for 'God,' they all say that 'God' (capitalized) can refer to a monotheistic or polytheistic diety. Chopstickkitty (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully: I am not suggesting it still is religious. I clearly said that the celebrations in the United States go back to the event of giving thanks to the (capitalized) God of monotheism; therefore, if and when there are references to this deity, those are references to just that one deity. It doesn't matter what the word in other contexts can refer to; in this particular context, it refers to the deity of the monotheistic/Abrahamic tradition. You might be confusing the scope of this article with the general one on harvest festivals. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole article as it stands is a complete mish mash of the secular Thanksgiving Day and the religious 'thanksgiving.' It seems to me that the religious 'thanksgiving' needs a separate category. This article spins off from 'Thanksgiving Day' (secular/harvest festival), not religious 'thanks-giving'.... The traditional Thanksgiving Day celebrated in America is separate/has a separate origin and history from religious 'thanksgiving' be it presidential proclamations, pilgrims declaring a day of 'thanksgiving', saying 'grace' at the dinner table....Chopstickkitty (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought, but that's a different discussion; if you can convince others (e.g. the people who care more than me about this) that there is a (capitalized) "Thanksgiving" in the United States which does not originate with the pilgrims, than you could have a point. That will be difficult to pull off, though, given that every Thanksgiving in the U.S. refers to the pilgrims... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. There does not appear to be consensus to rename the page as suggested at this time. - GTBacchus(talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanksgiving (United States) → Thanksgiving in the United States — As discussed above, in the previous move request, a better title for this article is "Thanksgiving in the United States". That's because this is not a separate topic that needs disambiguating from the primary topic of Thanksgiving, but rather a subarticle. The way we usually name geographic subarticles (such as Christianity in the United States) is with "in" followed by the place name. Powers T 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Thanksgiving Day is a U.S. holiday, held annually on November 25. It is not the same as the Canadian holiday, held on the second Monday in October. It is therefore different to something like Christianity, which does not have specific versions in each country. Furthermore, many American expatriates (maybe Canadian as well) celebrate the holiday overseas, not in the United States itself. The Celestial City (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like this idea, particularly given both the Canadian and United States articles are sub-articles to Thanksgiving. It just looks cleaner.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting case. The two holidays share marginally similar origins and even more cultural practices. However, they are separate holidays on very different days, not different manifestations of the same celebration, a case for parenthetical disambiguators. The Thanksgiving article only has three sentences worth of info that apply to both celebrations. — AjaxSmack 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. feastival of Thanksgiving is usually simply called "Thanksgiving" in the United States. By contrast, in the United States the term "Christianity" always refers to the religion. It does not normally refer to Christianity in the United States, or a U.S.-specific version of Christianity. The Celestial City (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the United States' celebration of Thanksgiving particularly specific to the United States (that's why we have an article called Thanksgiving, rather than a disambiguation page at that title). Powers T 18:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanksgiving is the collective name given to both U.S. and Canadian harvest festivals, which share certain attributes. Thanksgiving (United States) is a U.S. specific holiday usually simply called Thanksgiving. The Celestial City (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Suggestion , 'Thanksgiving Day' (United States). What I find unhelpful and confusing is the mixing up of the secular 'Thanksgiving Day' (this article is a stem from the history of the secular harvest festival) with the religious practice of 'thanksgiving or thanks-giving.' I believe that this article should simply stick to 'Thanksgiving Day' in the United States (Obserervance) - shortened to 'Thanksgiving Day (United States) and a disambiguation is needed for the term 'thanksgiving or thanks-giving' allowing the history, various presidential proclamations, practices to have a separate article.....or simply a redirection for people who are looking for information on this religious practice.Chopstickkitty (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vacation and travel

The citation for "the Thanksgiving holiday weekend is one of the busiest travel periods of the year" does not support the statement. It speaks about it being a busy travel period, but provides no support for the assertion that it is the busiest travel date for the year. The citation should be removed. To provide a counterpoint, this article states that the average daily number of airline passengers over the summer at SeaTac (Seattle-Tacoma) International Airport is still busier than the day before Thanksgiving. That raises the strong possibility that this common saying is just a myth. In any case, the citation I mention at the start of this paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.47.123.45 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist critical theory in "controversy" section

This is largely pseudo-controversy, are a couple of far-left Marxist professors spouting critical theory really important enough to be cited here? Seems very fringey, for such a widely celebrated event. Perhaps a paragraph in the main body of the text giving both sides of the Amerindian view and thats it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.227.95 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right. Alas, Wikipedia is mostly the work of easily influenced college students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.18.23 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there really been any sort of "movement" to change the date of the Thanksgiving holiday? Has this gained any steam whatsoever? All I see referenced is a 2006 blog post. I believe this and everything near the bottom of the "Controversy" section should be removed.—PowerSurge1000 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting for further citations/evidence, I have removed the section about "controversy" regarding the date of Thanksgiving. If this is re-added, it should return with reputable source citations, not just someone's personal blog suggesting we move the date. If this topic is going to be cited as a national controversy, it should be attributed with some sort of media coverage of a movement/proposal to change the date, not just one person's opinion on a WordPress blog.PowerSurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of religion still needs to be fixed

As has been discussed before, this article is biased towards Judeo-Christian beliefs. Thanksgiving is no longer considered a purely religious holiday, and it would be much more appropriate to not focus purely on the image of "god" in a Christian sense. As an example, the caption "Giving thanks to God before carving the turkey at Thanksgiving dinner" could very easily be neutralized as "Saying grace before carving the turkey is a popular Judeo-Christian practice at Thanksgiving dinner."

--Tjmcglynn (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the caption should reflect the original image's description, to which I have now changed it to. — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

Under the "Controversy" section: "Since 1970, the United American Indians of New England, a protest group led by Frank "Wamsutta" James that has accused the United States and European settlers of fabricating the Thanksgiving story and whitewashing a supposed genocide and injustice against Indians, has led a National Day of Mourning protest on Thanksgiving at Plymouth Rock in Plymouth, Massachusetts in the name of social equality and in honor of political prisoners." This requires a source.

Jkemnitz21 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CTJF83 15:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Pilgrims Incorrect

The current article, in the second paragraph, says "13 Pilgrims", then gives a reference that says there were 53. With the article being protected, I can't fix this. Can someone?

Other info: the "13" appears to come from the 13:48, 11 November 2011‎ edit by 65.51.192.132, which changed "53 pilgrims" to "13 puppys". The obvious part of the vandalism was fixed in the 07:29, 12 November 2011 edit by‎ Gilliam, who changed "13 puppies" to "13 Pilgrims", leaving the incorrect number. Ggchappell (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tugbug (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quote that never ends

In the section titled "Thanksgiving proclamations in the first thirty years of nationhood," there is an opening quote in the second line which never ends. Is this meant to be Washington quoting Congress? If so, where does the quote end? --JohnJSal (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed it based on http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm --JohnJSal (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


First Thanksgiving was 1863

There seems to be a bit of competition to rewrite the "first" date so that the origins/motivations can be inferred for what is now celebrated. Please consider reviewing the whole current WP article with a truly neutral point of view. Thanksgiving was never celebrated as a recurring holiday until 1863, and then for reasons given by Abe Lincoln (reasons which obviously morphed later). Previous celebrations, including Pilgrims, including previous Spanish, French, etc., were ALL one-time events for specific occasions, without a continuous chain of repetition, or without actually any reasons for continuous repetition. These previous celebrations only share a name with the US national holiday, which was started in 1863, so why is the popular rewrite of history tolerated here? There is no extra sources needed, the facts are right there plain as day in the Wikipedia article. These early one-time harvest & thanksgiving days, even if dictated by government, were by no means legitimate precursors to the modern holiday. Similar one-time days are documented (even in the two Wiki articles!) far before and after 1621, so why should anyone be able to just select one of them, nearly randomly (say 1621), and post facto claim that was the real precursor to the current holiday? Does Wikipedia really welcome such blatant rewritten history long after the fact? The first 2 paragraphs of this Wiki article are in stark contradiction to each other. As the 1st paragraph states, it has only been an annual tradition since 1863, but the 2nd paragraph boldly states incongruous happy platitudes that pass for modern rewritten tradition as the reasons. Lincoln's own words, later in the article, state the real reason for the beginning of the holiday. Am I the only one who sees this? Tom Hulse (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that modern Thanksgiving celebrations are commemorative of the Pilgrims' Thanksgiving feast in 1621 are hardly "random" or "blatant rewritten history". On the contrary, it's a well-established narrative nearly universally accepted. We report what the sources say, and what they say is that Thanksgiving hearkens back to that "first" celebration. Powers T 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Powers on this one. In fact, many of us have been adding, updating and correcting the references lately in the article in order to follow more closely what has been stated in the sources. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powers, what kind of gobbldeygook is "harken", in this context? I know what it normally means, but here it is a weasel word to represent rumors, tradition, & misunderstanding that have replaced real history. Read your own article, it's right there... tell me what chain of events led from 1621 to the beginning of the US national holiday in 1863. Link up those 2 dates, I dare you.  ;) Tom Hulse (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respond, but you'd probably just call it "gobbledygook" again, and accuse me of using weasel words. I have better things to do with my time. Powers T 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powers I apologize for calling it gobbledeygook. "Weasel words" however, is a legitimate reference to a kind of speech specifically addressed in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and I used it to indicate the ambiguous nature of "hearken" in that particular context. It goes to the core of what you are trying to say. The only way to link 1621 to 1863 is in an ambiguous way that is outside accurate history that would be relevant to an Encyclopedia. I've given you an impossible challenge: tell me what chain of events led from 1621 to the beginning of the US national holiday in 1863. I have dared you to link up those 2 dates, and hope you don't take the easy way out by feigning hurt feelings to avoid the hard question. Tom Hulse (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but I still have better things to do with my time. It's a pointless task, because even if was able to do what you ask, it would constitute original research and couldn't do much to inform the content of the article. The important thing, far more important than my choice of the word "hearken", is that the feast of thanksgiving held by the Pilgrims in 1621 is strongly ensconced in American tradition as the origin point of the modern celebration. This fact is indisputable. The fact that Lincoln may not have had that particular event in mind when he established the day in 1863 has no bearing on whether or not the average American does today. Powers T 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Absolutely true, I fully agree. But be careful about the details there. 1621 is not just ensconced in American tradition as an inspiration for their current celebration... modern American tradition says 1621 was the true "source", the historical beginning, the history, of this national holiday. Modern American tradition is plain wrong. The Wikipedia sources in this article prove it. You now know it's true. It is an historical error that is passed on by oral tradition. What is importantant to print here? Isn't Wikipedia a legitimate encyclopedia? Will you focus on the falsehoods just to appease the feel-good wishes of the incorrect masses? Are you going to gloss over the truth and continue to let them them believe this mistake? If you were to tell the average American that the history of Thanksgiving has no connection to 1621 they would be shocked, yet it's absolutely true. Are you going to keep them in the dark because the falsehood has become "ensconced" in modern tradition? Tom Hulse (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; what do other "legitimate encyclopedia"s say about it? Powers T 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powers it sounds like perhaps you're hoping for a 'some Encyclopedia did it wrong so we should too' situation. You're sure welcome to quote them if they address the facts directly. If no one else wants to step up to the facts directly, and to specifically defend the falsehoods about the origin of Thanksgiving we were taught in gradeschool, then you'll have to accept a vastly different (and shorter) main article. Once all the pre-1863 stuff is taken out of the History section (incl. the 1621 facts), and perhaps preserved in a new "Similar Celebrations" section, then their true relevance to this page can correctly be see as greatly minimized, and the key facts abbreviated. Before I spend all that time, if you have factual objections, please, please do bring them up now.
I do acknowledge that modern culture believes 1621 is the history of their celebration, and also that they do incorporate fanciful interpretations of the 1621 event in their modern celebrations. These two things of course must be included in the article, but certainly not in the History section. Tom Hulse (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why you think that the annual celebration established by Lincoln could not have, over the years, incorporated elements borrowed from the popular conception of the 1621 feast. Lincoln did not ensconce in law any specific mode of celebration of the day, merely the type of event and its date (which was later tweaked, of course). Any other traditions have grown organically over time via either invention or in commemoration of the 1621 event. That certainly seems relevant to me. Powers T 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree that modern tradition has incorporated conceptions of the 1621 harvest feast (which was factually not a Thanksgiving, but a debauched, drunken, 3-day party without prayer or thanks per reliable sources), in fact I just said they've incorpored them in my previous post. But to say, for instance, that the modern holiday's "origins" or "history" can be traced back to that 1621 celebration would be a lie if we allowed it to continue. It is impossible to accurately rewrite one's history, after the fact, to be something different than it is. It's too late, it's done. Modern tradition can celebrate any way they want: they can honor 1621, they can commemorate 1621, they can dress like them, they can teach their kids falsehoods about the holiday... but what they can't do is accurately claim 1621 is the origin or history of the modern holiday. We have to take all that junk out of the history section completely. Tom Hulse (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your suggestion of removing the "History" section or greatly modifying it. If anything, the wording should be compared to the descriptions of the First Thanksgiving at Plymouth from the Pilgrim Hall Museum's online documents. After all, that's where it all happened. Per your intent to add the notion that the modern-day holiday did not evolve from the events in 1621, then you will need to introduce some reliable sources that are verifiable concerning that theory. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say remove it, only modify to start in 1863... unless you can provide a legitimate chain of events that led from 1621 to 1863? Interesting you should bring up the Pilgrim Museum's online documents. They are unfortunately just a carefully selected smattering of quotes that could only have been intentionally crafted to support heavy POV on the holiday. For instance they do have quotes from the Governor, William Bradford, but only the rosy, happy stuff around the edges... they leave out his real description of his people's "notorious sin," which included their "drunkenness and uncleanliness" and rampant "sodomy". Instead of blindly supporting what you wish the holiday were, why don't you really look at what it is?
Per your request for reliable sources:
1)Abe Lincoln's proclamation is clear in it's reasons and that it is a beginning and does not look back. 1863 is the beginning per this reliable source.
2) Edward Winslow's original 1st person account of that 1621 feast did not mention a thanksgiving or giving of thanks or prayer. Instead he described things that were exactly opposite of what Protestants at the time generally considered a "Thanksgiving". Per Edward Winslow, a reliable 1st person source, the 1621 feast was not a Thanksgiving day, nor anything like it. No other original or early account mentions thankgiving or giving thanks or prayer on that day.
3) Customs and Fashions in Old New England By Alice Morse Earle is a source (1 of many) that describe common Thanksgivings at the time as single holy days of fasting and prayer that were one-time-only events. The Pilgrims would have strongly disagreed had you tried to call that party a "Thanksgiving".
4)Here is a link at National Geographic just to get you started on some of the myths around the holiday.
5) Here is an excerpt from The Hidden History of Massachusetts by Dr. Tingba Apidta
6) Most importantly, what real sources DO explain the historical connection between 1621 and 1863? Tom Hulse (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming to this a year late--Sorry.) Tom Hulse, you're partly right--it's impossible to substantiate the existence of a continuous series of Thanksgiving celebrations occurring every year from 1621 to 1863. But based on what you wrote above, it looks like you believe that 1.) there was no annual Thanksgiving holiday anywhere in the United States before 1863, and that 2.) the association of Thanksgiving Day with the Plymouth Pilgrims is a post-1863 invention. But a quick Google Books search for "Thanksgiving Day" + "Plymouth" in the years before 1863 turns up ample evidence that "Thanksgiving" or "Thanksgiving Day" was an annual tradition in New England and the interior Northern states, long before Sara Josepha Hale sold Lincoln on the idea of making it a unified national holiday. See here, or here, or here. The sources disagree as to what event at Plymouth is being commemorated--the landing at Plymouth Rock, or the 1621 feast, or the 1623 Thanksgiving, or the 1630 one--but there's no question that by the early 19th century New Englanders had adopted the custom of having an annual Thanksgiving Day holiday, and that the holiday was believed to have its source in the Plymouth colony. (Try Googling "Thanksgiving turkey" for the same time period, and it's amply clear as well that the turkey was already established as the central feature of the Thanksgiving Day feast by that time.) 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP206, thanks for your comments, why don't you register so I have something to call you? :) You still haven't linked the proven 1863 date to the bogus 1621 date; only clouded it a little around the later date. 1621 is the real issue; it's a false date for the origin of Thanksgiving. A smattering of celebrations spread out over different days in just a small area of the country is not exactly a continuous chain; and even if it were, you still have not reached it back to 1621. Your second source for instance, in the Annals of Cleveland, proves that these smattering of celebrations at the time it was published (1842, 200 years after the Pilgrims) there was still no fixed date. When you say "the sources disagree" about 1621, that is false. Only the secondary and non-historians disagree. You could find plenty of Martha-Stewart-style references both recent and in the mid 1800's, that only parrot the myth without claiming historical correctness; but primary and reliable historians do agree that Thanksgiving days back then were days of prayer and fasting, not 3-day celebrations with everything that was opposite their true thanksgiving days. Review the 6 references I listed above and try to match their reliability. You & I have exactly ALL the same primary-source information available to us that every historian does, thanks to the modern internet, and the primary sources agree there is nothing there about a Thanksgiving day; it was a fabrication of later years and Wikipedia should not lie about it.
I challenge you to think inside-out, and for a change, instead of defending your holiday simply because you cherish it, try truly looking for the unbiased truth. It's right in front of you. :) -- Tom Hulse (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll register someday. In the meantime, feel free to call me IP206. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was agreeing with you that there's no record of a continuous series of Thanksgiving celebrations from 1621 onward. Where I was disagreeing with you was regarding your claims that the "First Thanksgiving was 1863" and that "Thanksgiving was never celebrated as a recurring holiday until 1863, and then for reasons given by Abe Lincoln (reasons which obviously morphed later)." There's a huge amount of evidence that Thanksgiving was an annual holiday long before the Civil War, and that its association in the popular mind with the first English settlers of New England likewise predates Lincoln. You seem to be insisting that Lincoln's proclamation created a brand-new holiday rather than formalizing a tradition that was already firmly in place. Heck, Benjamin Franklin, writing in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1786, already describes the annual Thanksgiving feast as a tradition dating from the earliest years of colonial New England. It's possible, of course, that he's wrong about that fact, being a politician, polymath, and raconteur rather than a trained historian. But I don't see how it's rational to maintain that Thanksgiving only dates to 1863, in the face of the many earlier references to it, including its date, its popular association with the New England colonists, and even its menu (both pumpkin pie and turkey being referenced repeatedly in early 19th-century sources as the traditional foods of a Yankee Thanksgiving). Do you believe that holidays don't exist until they get federal recognition? If so, that strikes me as a peculiar stance to take. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving (United States)

Would someone be willing to add information regarding Turkey Raffles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.74.222 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC) RK (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Biblical origin of the Pilgrim's Thanksgiving

I understand that the modern American holiday of Thanksgiving is not based on the Pilgrim's Thanksgiving alone; it is also based on a variety of Presidential proclamations, and is (or at least should be) linked to America's giving thanks for deliverance from the Civil War, and subsequent wars. The holiday we have today, despite urban legend, is not supposed to be about the Pilgrims alone. That being said, the Pilgrim's thanksgiving is the most widely known part of this holiday, and is still a major part of it. As such, there is a big gap in this article at the moment - why did the Pilgrim's have this kind of thanksgiving? What was it's actual origin? What was the theology of the Pilgrims? What did they believe about themselves?

It turns out that the Pilgrims (like many Protestant Christian groups) thought of themselves as the ancient Israelites, as the new Jews, and they explicitly talked about themselves in those terms. They seem to have modeled their thanksgiving upon the Jewish festival of Sukkot, one of the major Biblical pilgrimage festivals. RK (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should incorporate some of this information into the article:

http://www.ucg.org/holidays-and-holy-days/thanksgiving-rooted-biblical-festival/

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/041112/sukkot.shtml

http://theshiksa.com/2010/09/22/sukkot-the-harvest-holiday/

http://www.interfaithfamily.com/holidays/shabbat_and_other_holidays/Thanksgiving_A_Harvest_Festival_with_Roots_in_Sukkot.shtml

The Jewish origin probably has a lot going for it. See the other Thanksgiving article for a believable Protestant origin (may be complementary). But the biggest point to make IMHO is that there is no single origin. Please be careful, there was an attempt here a few years ago to say that it was always just a harvest festival. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References for 1817?

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [3]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a spam notice by someone who does not actually edit this article and so is unlikely to be affected by supposed clutter. The suggestion does not work here. We have cites to scholarly books and articles that readers will want to use and the proposal will be very confusing to them. They click on a note and there is no book there. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand what LDR are. The readers will click on the note and there will be a citation in the same place - at the end of the article; it's not like readers actually go to edit note for the reference. Nor should editors be confused, after all the ref name="abc"/ is common enough (I count many dozens in this article), adding some more and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, after LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. Also, I found your accusation of spamming to be uncalled for; familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and WP:NPA before trowing such unfriendly terms at others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A method that works to separate text from long refs and make ref ends easier to find (while still keeping them near the text they support, and thus easier to find) is simply putting the </ref> (close ref) on a separate line (all by itself) at the end of the ref, and then adding a carriage return before continuing with the text - unless there are multiple refs, in which having a line which contains only </ref><ref> also makes the separation between refs easier to find. Carriage returns do not add to the length of text any more than a space character does (and much less than putting all the refs at the end). However, occasionally, some people mistakenly feel the need to "clean-up" such an arrangement.--JimWae (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sports addition - horse racing

The opening day of the horse racing season at the New Orleans Fair Grounds Racetrack should be included in the "other sports" category. Since 1898, this has been a New Orleans thanksgiving tradition.

http://www.myneworleans.com/Blogs/New-Orleans-Voices/November-2012/The-Fair-Grounds-141-Years-of-Horse-Racing/

http://www.fairgroundsracecourse.com/content/clubhouse-reservations-open-october-22-new-opening-day-premium-tables-offer-vip-experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyera (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film section

The section on "film" talks about Christmas-themed being released at Thanksgiving. I think it is worth mentioning that Miracle on 34th Street, although a Christmas-themed movie with its initial scene set at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, was ironically released in May.71.109.153.183 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of these articles is wrong.

The Pequot War article mentions itself as being having historical significance for the holiday. However, this article doesn't even bring up the Pequot people: Which article is correct?. --207.233.31.37 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no cited sources I put a "fact" template on that paragraph. It may well have been an early influence, but I think there is too much of a search for a "first Thanksgiving" going on in all of this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

I cannot believe that the music secion of such a traditional topic does not include at least some of the more traditional Thanksgiving Day hymns. I coule mention, for example, http://ingeb.org/spiritua/wegather.html, which I might have added if it were not protected. It would seem to me that that would be much more appropriate to such a holiday that has been around for several centuries han the 20/1'th century commercial references presently under "Music." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.100.60 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the Fruits of the Earth and all the other blessings of his merciful Providence

I've made some progress in researching the history of Thanksgiving. I hope nobody accuses me of "original research" since I wasn't trying to be original.

Background

In the 1600s and 1700s, the Church of England had two kinds of thanksgiving days, annual and providential. Annual thanksgivings were typically for political events such as the foiling of the gunpowder plot or the restoration of King Charles II. (The gunpowder thanksgiving is known today as Guy Fawkes Day.) Providential thanksgivings were proclaimed as needed for special events. The Book of Common prayer had a whole section devoted to Providential Thanksgivings, including one for rain.

Thanksgivings were observed in much the same way as Sundays. People went to church in the morning, then had a "day of rest." Menial work was not allowed. Recreation and entertainment was severely restricted. Racetracks and theatres were closed.

Providential thanksgivings could be declared on any of several levels of administration, by a priest, bishop, or archbishop. They could also be declared by the civil authorities at any of several levels. Various authorities usually conferred with one another before proclaiming a thanksgiving. However, the Plymouth Colony in 1645 passed a law that only the civil authorities could proclaim thanksgivings. In North America, English thanksgiving traditions were carried over by several churches that had split from the Church of England, including Episcopalian and New England Congregationalist.

Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the Fruits of the Earth

In 1785 the Episcopalians held a convention in Philadelphia. They had two goals: unite the 7 state churches into one church for the whole US, and come up with a new Book of Common Prayer. The old one had annual thanksgivings for Guy Fawkes Day (gunpowder treason) and one for the restoration of King Charles II. A committee came up with a new book known as "The Proposed Book" but it got shot down. Among the proposals: an annual thanksgiving for the Fourth of July and one for the Fruits of the Earth.

In 1789 the Episcopalians got a tamer version of the new prayer book (most of the controversial parts had nothing to do with thanksgivings). Thanksgiving for the Fourth of July was out, but "Thanksgiving to Almighty Gold for the Fruits of the Earth" was in, first Thursday in November.

The new prayer book, The American Book of Common Prayer, got reviews in newspapers and magazines throughout the English-speaking world. James Boswell (author of Life of Johnson) noted that the new Thanksgiving was "a sort of religious celebration of Harvest Home."

Over the next several decades, this holiday became popular in New England and parts of the Mid-Atlantic States, and not just among Episcopalians. During this time people occasionally used the terms "Thanksgiving-Day" and "Harvest Home" interchangeably.

Pilgrims

In 1816 Pilgrim descendents began claiming that their New-England ancestors had always celebrated Thanksgiving-Day this way. (Still looking into this to find out if there's anything to the claim, but so far no luck.) By then, they were starting to become a political force, as the northern United States had surpassed the South economically. (In the early days, the South had the upper hand.)

In 1820 the Pilgrim descendents tried to remind people that this was the 200th anniversary of the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock. (Apparently they forgot to celebrate the anniversary a century earlier.) The Pilgrim descendents also wanted to remind everyone just what we're celebrating: "our Pilgrim fathers." The next year, on the 200th anniversary of the Pilgrim's first harvest feast, they reminded everybody again. Not that these reminders had a huge effect, but the Pilgrim descendents were persistent. (A funny poem published in 1865 sums it up well. Called "The Dutch Pilgrim Fathers," it's about how the illustriousness of your ancestors is determined by how much time and effort the descendents are willing to expend on the project.)

After that, the whole thing gradually took off. By the 1820s the New Englanders had defined what constitutes are real Thanksgiving dinner (Turkey as the main dish, stuffing, pumpkin pie, etc.) The South hated the idea, the West was indifferent. (In the 1820s, the West meant what we today would call the Midwest.)

In the 1820s Mourt's Relation was published (important early Pilgrim document). Part II, including the paragraph describing the first harvest feast, was published in 1828. In 1841 the whole thing was published in one piece, along with an editorial comment describing the first harvest feast as "the first thanksgiving." In the 1855 Bradford's Journal (another important Pilgrim document) was printed for the first time. (Contrary to popular belief, neither of these two documents were ever really lost. Cotton Mather owned the manuscript of Bradford's journal for a number of years and quoted from it extensively.) Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1660s

I've made some progress in verifying the claims by people in New England in the early 1800s that their ancestors had been celebrating Thanksgiving Day this way since time immemorial. It turns out that they were right. Even though I had already seen plenty of books and articles that claimed as much, I was skeptical because I wanted to see a continuous chain from the 17th century to the 19th century, and solid documentation to back it up. It turns out that both the Pilgrims and the Puritans didn't observe the Church of England's annual thanksgivings because they were political. However, they had no problem with "providential" (one-time) thanksgivings. In the 1660s, both the Plymouth Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony developed a tradition of annually proclaiming a fast day in the spring and a thanksgiving in the fall. That tradition continued without interruption throughout the colonial period in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think you've got the basics down here - but of course you need to give the references. Please do check out footnote 7 - Baker, James W. (2009). Thanksgiving: the biography of an American holiday. UPNE. p. 273. ISBN 9781584658016.

which has got most of what you've got. On matters of emphasis:

  • you probably overemphasize the Episcopalian/Church of England connection - they didn't have much of a following north of Virginia, certainly not in New England
  • The rise of the Thanksgiving origin myth might be a good topic to explore further
  • Sarah Josepha Hale might use more emphasis.

You might ask - why not do it yourself? I will if it looks like reasonable folks with reasonable sources start working on the article. Earlier there was a lot of edit warring using 3rd grade texts. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the feedback. I actually stumbled across James W. Baker early in my research, but didn't really appreciate his book until a few days ago. When I wrote the part about the Episcopalians, the 1780s was as far back as I could reliably trace the origins of our national holiday. I now agree that they are a side-current, although I'm still exploring how influential they might have been. Their 1785 convention had delegates from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South-Carolina.

I also discovered Sarah Josepha Buell Hale early on, mainly because of her 1827 novel Northwood; a Tale of New England (published under various titles). The roasted turkey took precedence on this occasion being placed at the head of the table....savoury stuffing....bowls of gravy....pumpkin pie, an indispensable part of a good and true Yankee Thanksgiving....plumb pudding, custards and pies....currant wine....cider and ginger beer.... I agree that we need more about her. Incidentally, April 30 is her feast day in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church.

Also, I agree with what you said about the Thanksgiving origin myth.

As for my notes and references, I would be glad to make them available to anyone who's interested, but would need a few days to get them in order. (I have it all in a big Notepad file, but much of what's in there no longer seems relevant.)

Meanwhile, I have some concerns about the current state of the article that I was planning to discuss at some point.

First, including the complete text of primary sources (proclamations) is not encyclopedic. Even the Lincoln proclamation seems a bit much, although I don't see the point in arguing that one if someone wants to keep it.

Second, even mentioning proclamations that don't relate to the national holiday or it's development should be reconsidered. The Washington proclamation of 1789 was for the ratification of the Constitution. By then, the general concept of thanksgiving proclamations had already been well-established, so it doesn't set any sort of precedent.

And finally, the mention of numerous events that someone might consider a "first Thanksgiving." This article is not about first thanksgivings. The phrase "the first Thanksgiving" is just a conventionalized phrase, referring to an idealized version of a feast that occurred in New Plymouth in 1621. If we took the same approach to Christmas, the article would be full of people throughout history who claimed to be a real Messiah. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

I wouldn't mind making the changes myself. Right now I'm still fact-checking the claim that Fast Day and Thanksgiving Day were proclaimed every year in the spring and fall respectively from the 1660s. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Buy Nothing Day" does not deserve a reference

This article posits that "some" refer to the day after Thanksgiving as "Buy Nothing Day." This "some" should be quantified, because otherwise this small group is just using this as an opportunity to raise awareness to their silly movement. Alternative names should be limited to actual colloquial usages.

Thanksgiving is on the last thursday of November, so therefore not necessarily the fourth, sometimes the fifth thursday.

Astaxanthine (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Interestingly enough, Thanksgiving does fall on the fourth Thursday of November, not the last; see this and this. clpo13(talk) 20:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving dates 1990-2050

It says 1984 under November 22 and 24. The real date is November 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.93.190 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thanksgiving_(United_States)&oldid=692418308"