Talk:Horror film: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horror film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Horror film is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film Horror Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles

Paranormal Top‑importance

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Horror film (50 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,686 2,686 Characteristics 4,339 10,709 Cinematic techniques 1,726 1,726 Music 896 896 Themes 3,748 3,748 History 82 82 Sub-genres of horror films 243 21,160 Body horror 1,075 1,075 Christmas horror 2,905 2,905 Erotic horror 2,527 2,527 Folk horror 1,939 1,939 Found footage horror 988 988 Gothic horror 2,353 2,353 Natural horror 2,538 2,538 Psychological horror 975 975 Religious horror 1,429 1,429 Slasher film 1,638 1,638 Supernatural horror 420 420 Teen horror 2,130 2,130 Regional horror films 69 55,202 Asian horror films 2,008 27,519 Hong Kong 6,312 8,625 Exploitation and Category III 2,313 2,313 India 5,383 5,383 Indonesia 51 51 Japan 6,457 6,457 South Korea 4,951 4,951 Thailand 44 44 Oceania 15 4,637 Australia 2,559 2,559 New Zealand 2,063 2,063 European horror films 1,596 19,766 France 3,180 3,180 Germany 3,548 3,548 Italy 5,473 5,473 Spain 5,909 5,909 United Kingdom 60 60 Americas 17 3,211 Mexico 3,194 3,194 Effects on audiences 26 7,023 Psychological effects 2,569 2,569 Physical effects 4,428 4,428 Reception 17 8,724 In film criticism 5,779 5,779 Censorship 2,928 2,928 References 17 16,973 Notes 25 25 Bibliography 16,931 16,931 Further reading 476 476 External links 476 476 Total 123,511 123,511

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's the cite I provided, noting they were on pages 2 and 9:^[1] Valereee (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  This is where

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply

  ]

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

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Hollywood Reporter^[2] is not a listicle. NPR^[3] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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.^{[1]: 2, 9 [4]} It is part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric celebrations of the winter solstice.^[4][5] An early example of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night.^[4][6]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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
     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)[reply

  ]

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 "

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in,

this post. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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.^{[1]: 2, 9 [2]} The roots of the genre are part of a seasonal tradition in the UK dating to prehistoric celebrations of the winter solstice.^[2][3] An early example of the modern Christmas horror genre in film is the 1972 Silent Night, Bloody Night.^[2][4]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]