Talk:Horror film

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Citation 264 directs readers to an article by John O'Greene and Glenn Sparks, however, the article listed is by Glenn Sparks, John Sherry and Graig Lubsen, per the doi link (https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500084198). This article does not mention the ecitation transfer process mentioned in the wikipedia text. Could the cited reference please be removed from the page? JGarnettAU (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashley Rodgers90 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jneezy504 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Tags

I feel like the banner tags could be removed from this article; it's been revised heavily in the past seven years since they were added. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Horror

I was bold previously and removed the "Christmas horror" section. While there are several instances of horror films set around Christmas and proper public reaction, none of them describe it as a genre (at least in the current indication). I don't think it should be used as such without such distinction as there are several films released with holiday-themes to try and cash in on re-watches, but is that a genre per se? The sources dont' back that up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The book I've cited describes it as a subgenre on multiple pages. You asked for citations to that book by page numbers, so I ordered the book through ILL and provided them, so I did address the concerns you brought up in your previous removal's edit summary. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the cite I provided, noting they were on pages 2 and 9: Valereee (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking into, the book seems to just say it's a cycle without really providing a lot of evidence. It even state Jason Bailey discussing that since Halloween leading to a glut of holiday-themed horror and the author themselves states on page 5 and 6 "defining a Christmas horror subgenre has also proven to be challenging." noting it's not limited to a santa-themed killer, it's not a sub-genre of the slasher, but then again says there is a sub-set of it that is a slasher sub-sub-genre (on page 7). I'm not seeing any real strong definition here other than in and out of horror film history, some horror films were set on Christmas. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Defining it may be challenging, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a subgenre. It has subgenres of its own. Not sure what "it's a cycle" means.

What exactly are you looking for, if a book about the subgenre published by an established publisher that uses the term "Christmas horror subgenre" multiple times in its introduction isn't good enough? Valereee (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that makes it quality as a Google search, but there is little context here, there is no meat on the bones of it. It can't seem to decide what it is other than "some horror films are on Christmas" but might as well say that any film. Is it a horror subgenre or a Christmas film subgenre? The book does not seem to go into detail and doesn't makes a convincing argument and doesn't even seem convinced by its own declaration. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we'll need a third opinion. Valereee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've requested one. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm actually at a keyboard I can type at now. To clarify, this niche style seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher. I feel this information from the book is probably misplaced, or better by Christmas by medium. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What is a horror cycle? Valereee (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood cycles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What does that concept -- explained in a microstub which has been tagged as unsourced for fifteen years -- have to do with whether or not a subgenre qualifies as a subgenre? Valereee (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to help you if you are trying to write about film genre and have not stumbled upon the term "genre cycle". Either way, I'd also bring up WP:FRINGE for this as this is such a small sub-sub-sub-genre, that having it located within the article against far more broad terms "slasher, supernatural horror, etc." There are certainly a book or two about Christmas themed horror films, but I don't see anything scholarly or serious (as this book even opens up, it's not supposed to be a serious scholarly view). Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll ignore the insult. Again: what does that concept -- or FRINGE -- have to do with whether or not a subgenre qualifies as a subgenre?Valereee (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Because from what I've researched when writing the article, the Christmas horror cycle or genre or subgenre, did not come into major discussion (which is why I may also refer to WP:UNDUE, in factoring in this with the other genres.) What is the essential understanding that viewers take away from this? How common is this term? It's not very from my research in writing up this article. I apologize, for the insult, but you asked me twice, when it's something you can easily take search and perhaps I felt a bit attacked. I apologize. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I'm sorry you felt attacked. But there's an entire book -- and according to that book, at least two others -- about the subgenre. Why does it matter whether or not someone somewhere is calling it a "cycle"? How is it somehow a fringe theory when an established publisher -- a publisher who publishes academic works -- is publishing a book of essays about the subgenre?

The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's strong as I never hear the term in regular use. Even looking up the major films like Gremlins or Black Christmas, they are usually referred to by far more common genres or subgenres. This is why I'm calling WP:UNDUE here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that you never hear the term in regular use, though. What matters is what RS are calling it, and in this case there are multiple RS, including at least one book of essays about the subgenre, using the term. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point, I can google it as you have and find bits and bobs, but it's not a strong common thread per WP:UNDUE. Specifically "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space" We don't include everything just because there is a citation available. It does matter, because there is undue weight applied here. I wouldn't add the term Nu-kaidan applied by David Kalat in his book on J-Horror which he tried to clarify as being a term for the rise of J-Horror films, as the term is not colloquial. I've searching through academic journals and am finding nothing, and I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point. It's not undue to include in the article about a genre that discusses subgenres of that genre a very short discussion of a subgenre that has dozens of notable entries going back over five decades and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm open to what that short discussion entails, but including it is not undue. Valereee (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Just wanted to mention that a good barometer for measuring the acceptance of declared genres, is to look up films at AllMovie, AFI, and BFI to see how those entities categorize film. Just picking one at random here that would seemingly fit the bill of "Christmas horror", I went with Krampus to see how it was categorized. AFI labels it "Comedy, Fantasy, Horror"; BFI just lists "Horror"; AllMovie, which is usually the most inclusive of the bunch, lists the primary genre as "Fantasy, Drama, Horror, Comedy" and the sub-genres as "Creature Film, Holiday Film".
  Looked up Black Christmas next, and BFI again just has "Horror", while AllMovie has "Mystery, Horror, Thriller" with "Slasher" as a sub-genre (interestingly, the film does not have an entry on AFI).
  These are not nails in the coffin for either side of the argument, but they should probably be taken into account. Film genres on Wikipedia typically rely on sources like these, and if they're not using the classification, then chances are it is a fringe classification that isn't widely recognized. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve some coverage, but it should probably be very limited in scope. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's basically what I'm trying to get at, even in terms of genre, it would be an utmost outlier that outside of "10 Christmas Horror films to watch around the holidays" as a generic term to cover Gremlins or Black Christmas, which if we gathered the most base sources, would describe it as various other genres and sub-genres more prominently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The addition I'm suggesting is 115 words. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not that it's a short or long element, it's that even just including it with the others like natural horror or such feels undue. I think that's not what I'm getting across to you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're getting it across to me; you don't want it included at all. I disagree that any inclusion is undue. As I've said, I'm open to what that inclusion is. But based on RS, it's a subgenre. Valereee (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is where WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we have one citation of this book referring to it as a subgenre. This is why I brought up the academic journals and even the book itself states "nobody discusses it". As the current horror film article states "genre is what we collectively agree it to be", in this case, we have one person calling it this. WP:SOURCETYPES also notes to "cite current scholarly consensus". WP:RS also states to " Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." In short, and what I have been trying to get across, is, you'll need more than just this publication, and more specific academic research is not on your side here. If anything, for what I've said above, this fails the rules you said apply to it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem we are going to run into, is that typically when you introduce a subgenre, you need to provide examples. What examples would you provide? AFI, BFI, and AllMovie are among the most respected authorities on the subject. None of them seem to support the subgenre, so that would make listing Black Christmas, Silent Night, Deadly Night, Krampus, etc., a difficult claim to defend. Sure, there are some decent sources out there that have used the "phrase", but are they actually saying this is an established genre (established in the sense of writing about a widely-accepted concept, as opposed to coining a new term)? If they are coining the new phrase without making reference to others' writings on the subject, then they are behaving as a primary source. Primary sources are not bad per se, but they typically hold less weight than secondary sources who provide in-depth analysis of a subject that others have already covered.

  I haven't dug into the sources that deeply, so I'm truly just asking the question here as an outside observer. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  What horror subgenres that we're mentioning do they support? Valereee (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, if you want to take the time to peruse the site, be my guest. I think one of the three have a complete list you can search through. I can't remember offhand, and I'm out of time today. However, if you could still help me get an answer to the question I asked in the meantime, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @GoneIn60, I think you're asking me to answer are they actually saying this is an established genre (established in the sense of writing about a widely-accepted concept, as opposed to coining a new term)?? Yes, I think between the book, the Hollywood Reporter, and NPR, RS are saying it's an established subgenre. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  (ec) @GoneIn60, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is also at AFI under Horror. Not "Teen horror". And at AllMovie at Mystery, Horror, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Thriller with subgenres Creature Film, Religious Drama. We mention it here specifically in the Teen horror section, and there isn't even a main article for that section, which is over twice as long as what I'm suggesting. I'm not trying to pretend I understand film genre MOS, but I just don't understand how this could be undue. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think all subgenres that lack support at AFI, BFI, and AllMovie would be eligible for the same scrutiny. Andrzejbanas is going into these genre articles and attempting to clean them up as noted here. That's not to say they have to be explicitly supported by the big three, but if they are not, we're going to need some pretty strong coverage elsewhere, and that probably means more than a passing mention in a few books and articles. Can't hurt to have the discussion. I definitely don't want to lose information that is getting significant coverage. GoneIn60 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The strongest source I'm citing is a book of essays about the subgenre published by an established publisher that publishes academic books. This source isn't academic, but the entire book is about the subgenre. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm open to removing teen horror honestly as well, as it appears to be more of a cycle (or perhaps belongs in closer observation with the teen film. But as it stands, that one has several academic articles, books from several different authors. I probably didn't do away with it as i've heard the term teen film tossed around enough and managed to find several sources backing it, but I did try and do the same for christmas horror, and came up with basically only your book and several listicles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hollywood Reporter is not a listicle. NPR is not a listicle. Both refer to this as a genre or subgenre. Both discuss the genre and its appeal in depth. I do not move drafts to main space until I have sigcov in three RS. Check the history at Christmas horror, where you can see the move. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've had books from McFarland that completely had incorrect information (i'm looking at you Italian Horror Film Directors). I'll admit those are stronger sources, but these seem to be not very scholary. The THR source states "Tales From the Crypt (1972) became the first film to feature its killer in a Santa outfit, something that would become a standard of the subgenre" while the book says they are not slashers. There is no consistency between the few and far between sources of what is the genre, because Christmas films set and again, there is no real scholarly information other than "this film came out, then this one. Gremlins exists." There is no real context or anything interconnecting these in any of these sources. Can you develop these into a consistent paragraph we can have that sort of Transends something beyond "Christmas horror films are horror films set during christmas", then it would be worth including. Because despite these being reputable sources, there is no real thought put into them other than well disguised listicle content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well-disguised listicle content like NPR and Hollywood Reporter, you mean? Valereee (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  What information do you want to pull from those articles? What indepth research is there in it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that there is a subgenre to horror that is recognized by the industry, the best mainstream media, and an established publisher. That's worth mentioning here. Valereee (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  So from what you said, you just want to say that "it exists". But I more or less meant, what do we want to say? Like, could your write a sample here based on these sources because so far if you just want to say it exists (which I don't you do), then that offers nothing to anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could we compromise on:

  === Christmas horror ===

  Main article: Christmas horror

  The earliest use of horror elements in films with a Christmas setting date to the early 1900s, but the modern genre fully emerged in film during the early 1970s and was controversial due to its departure from traditional treatments of Christmas in film. It is part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric celebrations of the winter solstice. An early example of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night.

  That tells the reader that there's an origin history dating back to prehistory and there were precursors in film 100 years ago, that the subgenre emerged in the 70s and was controversial, and that one important early example is SNBN. Valereee (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  a few issues. Per the History of horror films, the term horror as a genre did not exist, so referring to them as much in an anachronism. Either way, this in article on horror film, so we don't need to discuss that. We sort of just jump to topics that like a "modern" (in what way is it modern?). The genre isn't really controversial, as people weren't protesting a genre, they protested specific films so that's not really accurate either. This is kind of why I didn't really like these sources, because it makes a lot of false connections as a whole. I tried to scrap something myself from what was written in the book, NPR, and THR, but just found inconsitencies and nothing that really is a strong connection.  :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you're unwilling to make any compromise whatsoever for a short mention of this subgenre because you dismiss what is being said in a book 100% about the genre published by an established publisher, a feature-length article in a 90-year-old trade publication, and a fairly lengthy treatment by one of the most well-regarded English RS? Valereee (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also please stop using Wikipedia as a source. It's not a reliable source. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm obviously using the cited prose in the article. Please assume good faith, I have tried to apply the sources you mentioned myself, and I don't think publications break rules as valid sources, I just don't think the content within them is there to convincingly say anything of major value. I'd suggest actually reading these articles in questions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, If you want to use those sources that isn't my issue. My issue is that they have a lot written in them but with little usable applicable content. Yes, reading ghost stories was a Christmas tradition in the UK dating back to what that source states, but that doesn't connect the dots between this and the 1970s films historically or if they are even connected. This not display a lineage or history, it's a rag tag of horror and horror-oriented texts that only assume a connection because they are both set around Christmas. (unless there is something I'm missing in the prose, but not from what I've read or what you have sourced). Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am trying to assume good faith, but you keep pointing me at sometimes long and often undersourced and poorly-written tangential articles as if they're providing support for your objections, which keep changing every time I address them.

  1. The first objection was here, where you wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre. So, yes, you were objecting to it as a genre. So I went and got those page citations and, since I thought that was your objection and I'd dealt with it, added the info back.
  2. Your second objection was here, where you complained that I had added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true.
  3. You then argued of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content you'd removed I'd quoted the book source calling it a genre three different times.
  4. You then argued that it wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher.
  5. You then argued that you didn't find the book's arguments convincing.
  6. You then argued that seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher. I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect here.
  7. You then told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film.
  8. You argued calling a genre was FRINGE.
  9. You then argued that nothing in the sources]] provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.
  10. You then argued that you never heard the term in common use.
  11. You argued that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, sayig, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic.
  12. You Diff/1199086783argued that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment.
  13. You argued that you've found errors published in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles.
  14. You argued that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice.
  15. At this point, two other editors came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. And you said, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it.

  Which is starting to sound a bit WP:OWNy -- if you can't write it, it doesn't go in? I've written something like five different version of this. I think if you can't write it, and others agree this is a legitimate subgenre of horror, we should include some version of what I've written. Valereee (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally had a chance to take a closer look at two of the main sources in question here: NPR (2015) and The Hollywood Reporter (2018).

Both are independently written on the subject and suggest there is a deep historical connection between "darkness" – embodying fright, misery, death and decay – and Christmas tradition, which dates back for centuries. That darkness is tied to ghost story elements from Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale (1623) and Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843) all the way to "It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" (1963). Other associated dark elements include the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents, folklore figure Krampus (16th century), the evil Mouse King in "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King (1816), and the Abominable Snowmonster (1964). These sources call these precursors to the "scaled up" horror elements depicted in the modern Christmas horror genre, an era that both agree begin with the release of Black Christmas in 1974. THR actually calls the subgenre a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story". NPR adds insight from industry buff Hannah Forman and Krampus director Michael Dougherty.

I don't believe I have immediate access to review the book source, but it wouldn't be surprising if it touched on some of these same points. Additional sources I came across include Collider (2022) from Senior Writer Shawn Van Horn, as well as Mashable (2022) and Fronteras Desk (2022), a subsidiary project of an NPR affiliate. The latter is just a short excerpt from an ASU Film and Media Studies professor, but it does show that the subgenre has some level of academic acceptance.

With all that said, there isn't a ton of coverage outside of those sources and a pile of listicles found on Google (at least in terms of online sourcing). There is also still the concern that this genre mashup hasn't truly received widespread acceptance. Some of these sources revert back to the "slasher" subgenre as a whole when describing Christmas horror, which could indicate it is a less prominent sub-subgenre of horror. If that's the case, then its coverage is really getting into the weeds of genre classification. Despite this concern, I do think it's received enough coverage as a minority aspect to warrant a very brief mention in this article per WP:DUE, a position that will only be strengthened as more high-quality sources are published and/or located. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've written something like five different version of this. I think if you can't write it, and others agree this is a legitimate subgenre of horror, we should include some version of what I've written. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on what to include, other than they think it's a genre. So that's not agreeing or disagreeing to the present situation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write something up. Headed off to an appointment right now, I'll be back when I'm back at my keyboard. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Third Opinion

Maybe the above comments by User:GoneIn60 were meant to be a Third Opinion. If so, the Third Opinion request can be closed. If not, I concur with the above statement by GoneIn60 that Christmas horror is a valid subgenre of horror. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Robert McClenon. Just for clarification, I stumbled across this discussion after following a bread-crumb trail that began with this post. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, @Robert McClenon. Valereee (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed wording

We've agreed this is a legitimate and recognized subgenre, but Andrzejbanas wants to gain consensus on the wording of the addition. I've taken their concerns expressed about previous versions of the addition into account and am proposing this:

Christmas horror

Main article: Christmas horror

Films with a Christmas setting dating to the early 1900s have included elements common in modern horror, but the subgenre fully emerged during the early 1970s and was controversial due to its departure from traditional treatments of Christmas in film. The roots of the genre are part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric early celebrations of the winter solstice. An early example Early examples of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is are the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night and the 1974 Black Christmas.

GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon, would you be willing to weigh in again? Valereee (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support – I think in general, it's a good start. The text can be tweaked further after insertion as needed. One concern, however, is using THR to support the "prehistoric" claim. The excerpt from the source states, "Ghost stories were considered an English Christmas tradition, a means to recognize winter as a season of death and decay along with the new life promised by Christmas and the birth of Christ." Dating back to the birth of Christ doesn't imply prehistoric times. I'm also not seeing that mentioned in the Gutter Review source, but even if it is, that's a low-profile pop culture website that probably isn't a good enough reference to stand on its own. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
  And finally, I think it's just an important to mention Black Christmas, if not more important, based on the sources' claims that this was the real beginning of the genre (when it "took off" according to THR). You may also want to make sure NPR is cited for the "roots of the genre" claim, since NPR and THR are the strongest supporters that tie this all together IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to tweaking prehistoric. Certainly happy to include Black Christmas and add the NPR source to 'roots of'. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've made those changes. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, I take issues with the wording. "Films with a Christmas setting dating to the early 1900s have included elements common in modern horror". Careful with words like "modern". What is this referring to? the 1970s films? the 21s century films? It's not clear what this means. Having elements of horror is also vague, beacause that term is not was not used regularly back then. (You can read more about it .) And as I brought up again, they weren't railing against a trend or genre, they were railing against specific films. This has not addressed any of the issues I brought up with the last entry. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  And actually, I'm not seeing anything in the cited THR source about films in the early 1900s. This sentence may need to be crafted differently with an adjustment to citations. As for "modern", THR uses this term differently throughout the article. The first occurrence refers to the "scaled up" horror elements in the 70s and 80s being a modern form of "Christmas ghost stories"; it is NOT calling the horror films of that time modern. But later on, it does call the subgenre as a whole (which first appeared in the 70s) a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story". Again, this is not referring to "modern horror" per se, so it does appear that some clarity is needed in that opening sentence. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @GoneIn60, if I'm understanding your question correctly, THR says "While Christmas horror is considered a phenomenon that began in the 20th century with the advent of film and television, it goes back even further." So that would support early 1900s? Valereee (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  A careful read is that Christmas horror began in the 20th century, which could be referring to years 1900-1999. It then says "with the advent of film of television", but this portion is just referring again to the century in which these formats appeared, not necessarily the beginning of the century (which we know is true, because television didn't really appear until after WWII). The assumption of "early 1900s" doesn't appear to be adequately supported here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Began in the 20th century with the advent of film and television for me clearly indicates early century, but okay. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Valereee has offered a proposed wording, and User:GoneIn60 has said it's a good start, but User:Andrzejbanas appears to take issue. Do they have either a different suggestion or a suggestion for an improvement? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've said it earlier, but I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable. Unless there is depth within the book I haven't read, the source as they stand do not have enough information to function into anything useful for readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, Andrzejbanas is unable to come up with a suggestion, but has objected to all of mine as not useful to readers (among more than a dozen other objections over the course of this discussion; every time I address one, they come up with another).

  Their current objection seems to be that if they themselves can't write it, it shouldn't be included. I've previously addressed the concern that there's nothing in the sources that is useful for readers: The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.

  I am trying to be patient and assume good faith, but this feeling very much like ownership of the article. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please trust me that if I could write something up that would be of use to readers, I would..As of now, all variations you have added are not stating what the source says. Also you have continuously misinterpreted my issues. I feel like my main issue is that while the publishers of your sources (mostly) have passed WP:RS, the content within them can't be organized in any serious way to suggest what they promise: either a cycle or history of this sub genre. I don't feel like my points are invalid either, the critical backlash has not been against the genre, just a few individual films and no serious connection has been made to how these connect as a cycle, genre or otherwise. Trust me, I'd rather have this settled sooner, but no issues have addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this seems to be arguing "If I can't write it, it can't be written". Valereee (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, not at all. My issues are your sources and prose have no flow. There is no connection between the spare bits of horror and horror-like fiction here with christmas, despite them having headlines saying "CHristmas horror! let's talk about this sub-genre", they don't go into the meat and potatoes. I'm also not the only person to point our your sources aren't state what you claim, so this is not just me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

New suggestion

First, my apologies for the delay in getting back to this thread. There was a widespread regional issue with my ISP affecting access to Wikipedia and a few other sites. I went ahead and took the liberties of building upon and rewriting the good start Valereee gave us, based on my earlier analysis. Please have a look and see what you think. This is completely based off the two main sources I analyzed earlier, so if the book also supports any of this, we can certainly throw that in as an additional citation.

Christmas in literature has historically included elements of "darkness" – fright, misery, death and decay – dating as far back as the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents and more recently in works such as E. T. A. Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" (1816) and Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol (1843). The Christmas horror genre in film emerged in the 1970s, featuring "scaled up" horror elements that the The Hollywood Reporter calls a "modern reinvention of the Christmas ghost story". One of the earliest entries is Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972), and this was soon followed by Black Christmas (1974), which is often credited with being one of the most influential that inspired other films in the genre.

Further changes can still be made of course, or we could discard this suggestion altogether, but I think this cuts to the heart of what I was thinking: 2-4 sentences and less than 200 words. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the best i've seen so far, but I still take a few issues with it. citing Black Christmas as influencing other films in the genre (which I assume you mean is the Christmas horror here), is not mentioned. NPR: writes "Black Christmas is both underrated and influential. "It's considered by some to be one of the first slasher films in the U.S.," she says." Which suggests influence in slasher, not that the other christmas-themed films that followed. Looking at the NPR source too, I'm back and forth on regularity of what they are saying with genre theme as it's all mostly spoken by someone from the fansite Womeninhorror. The Hollywood Reporter article also states thing like "it didn't take off until Black Christmas" but it doesn't back that up. Per the citations in Black Christmas article, Black Christmas was not a hit that was duplicated for it's christmas theme, the only real mention I see of it influencing anything a bit was Halloween (1978), and did not make as much money as expected theatrically. So stating it was the most influential is vague. It implies it was influential on the genre, which does not appear to be backed up by anything. They discuss it as being an early slasher film (which i'd even argue, but that's another conversation). This is again why I'm saying the sources are really wishy-washy with trying to sell this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support GI60's proposed addition. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you are supporting another implementation that does not state what is discussed in the articles cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think GI60 did a lovely job. Great prose, thoughtful interpretation, hits all the important points. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are clearly ignoring me at this point as I've stated that the sources in question don't state what is written in the prose. It fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." I've made my statements above which make it clear what the issue is. I can't really take rebuttal seriously if you don't at least try to acknowledge them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring you. I'm disagreeing with you. Valereee (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can you explain what you specifically disagree with? I feel like it's not really a case of opinion. The prose does not match what is stated by the citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  And I'm saying it does. That's what I disagree with.

  Oh, and by the way: You are definitely ignoring me. So maybe don't throw stones. Valereee (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I was ignoring you, I wouldn't be addressing you. I hate to say it, but if you can't elaborate on how it actually states what is being stated (and as far as I've read, it doesn't). And yes, from your link, you have addressed some of my concerns. You have found more valid sources, but nobody has provided prose that states what is being claimed.

  I will admit, I did miss the entire post you made with the numbers and GoneIn60s's follow-up as a new heading was made, I leapt to that. I apologize, it was an honest mistake. To clarify, i've tried using my access to the Wikipedia Library to do any further research and see if there were any Media Journal entries about this. If there are, I haven't found any. The articles in question still basically seem to be having fun with the idea of Christmas horror, but do not really connect the dots. At one point they say Black Christmas is an influential one, but more so as a early slasher film than anything specific with this discussed genre. And the protests or controversy doesn't relate that people were protesting a genre, just a few films here or there. So please forgive me missing the big post, as new headings were suggested. The sources are valuable publications, the content in the article has yet to make any serious convictions about genre or sub-genres. So Just by saing "well i think it does", sort os suggests to me you are ignoring my issues. I did miss your previous posts, and I appreciate you pointing them out, but I'll have to ask you to actually address the issues I brought up if we can continue this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've addressed every issue you've brought up. Please reread this long discussion. I'll ignore the implied double standard. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References