Jump to content

Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Page ratings?

Bunch of Scrooges must have been submitting ratings! This was a fun read, and if there is some inaccuracy or lack of documentation, is that going to stop the world from turning? Or even diminish the value of Wikipedia? To whoever is responsible, thanks for the several smiles and the one Ho Ho Ho. (and to the Wikipedia official, sorry for any violation of the guidelines here) Merry Christmas! Anewcharliega (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Warner Flackmout a Real Person ?

I mean Father Christmas is undoubtedly real - but could anyone really be called Warner Flackmout?--Streona (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure one could, but in this case the character was clearly invented for the Forbes article. (There is no "Worldwide Association of Toys and Trinkets", of which Flackmout is supposedly a representative.) Powers T 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Santa - The Salvation Army vs. the Volunteers Of America

Please edit the following:

The image of Santa Claus as a benevolent character became reinforced with its association with charity and philanthropy, particularly by organizations such as the Salvation Army. Volunteers dressed as Santa Claus typically became part of fundraising drives to aid needy families at Christmas time.

To read: The image of Santa Claus as a benevolent character became reinforced with its association with charity and philanthropy, particularly by organizations such as the Volunteers Of America. Volunteers dressed as Santa Claus typically became part of fundraising drives to aid needy families at Christmas time and support the functions of the organization all year round.



My reference information is the following: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.176.34 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Normally most Salvation Army Kettles are not monitored by a Santa Claus dressed figure. This error has been promoted for a very long time. The Volunteers Of America are normally the organization with monitoring by a Santa Claus dressed figure. Confusing the two causes donations to go the wrong organization. The Volunteers Of America are an off shoot of The Salvation Army.


RevMarket (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This seems like too much weight for an issue that is tangential to the actual topic of the article. The article just used the Salvation Army as an example. Your change is also unreferenced. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Santa Claus Mythical Creature - Removal of offending word (High Priority)

Surely a claim stating an entity is a mythical creature would require a burden of proof and hence needs a source?

"simply "Santa", is a figure with legendary, mythical, historical and folkloric origins"

I would like the mythical part of this summary for Santa to be removed, to fall within the guidelines of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.190.177 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Double meaning of Piet

Please remove or modify the parts under 'Dutch Folklore' claiming "Piet" also means "servant" or "slave". I'm Dutch. Although in The Netherlands the subject of "Zwarte Piet" is indeed controversial I have never heard (or cannot find sources that confirm) that "Piet" has a second meaning besides the usage as a (very commonly Dutch) first name. It is my understanding that the controversy mainly evolves around Zwarte Pieten being coloured black. The claims in the article should be supported by a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.230.86 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be a pure personal invention, and very non NPOV. I found one Dutch encyclopedia, listing the meaning of the word "piet", and it didn't have anything even remotely resembling slave, it did list "boss" as a possible meaning though, see [1] Mahjongg (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am Dutch also. I know that it does mean boss and not slave. It should be removed because it is purely Vandalisim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evoogd20 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Paganism

The Paganism section now has 3 sources: 2 of which are a hundred years old, and 1 that is 20 years old and appears to have no direct reference to Santa Claus.

I have deleted citations of primary sources which do not refer to Santa Claus (Norse mythology). These were a bad example of original research: a contributor using Wikipedia to make their own original argument (and a pretty dubious one at that). I also deleted one reference to a blog which was clearly not a reliable source.

If there is a reputable argument that links Santa to Odin, there should be more recent, reliable sources. Moreover I am unable to check the existing sources and have no confidence that the text here accurately conveys their contents.

I think this section needs to be improved or removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed another dubious paragraph, see Talk:Odin#Santa_Claus.
I used the 1917 source to update the content, but we would really need more recent sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This section does need to be redone with better references (and it doesn't help that the Odin article is in fact one of our worst Germanic mythology articles at the moment), but please do not insert nonsense like "the original Saint Nicholas traditions predate both the worship of Odin and Christianity". :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I rewrote the section, this time putting matters in context. With this core it should be easy to add to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It still looks like a synthesis. Who exactly says Odin is Santa? Can we have a direct quote from the 1917 source which shows what its thesis actually is? As pointed out on the Odin page, paganism only appears to be dealt with in a short chapter in this book.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying "Odin is Santa", but two examples are provided from a wide span of time that note a likely influence on what we today know as "Santa Claus". First:

"The Story of St. Nicholas became popular throughout Europe, and by the Middle Ages, his legend became imbricated with other characters and religious figures. Merging with script embodied by the bearded, flight-loving Norse god, Odin, St. Nicholas was believed by children in many countries to ride a magical horse to deliver mid-wintertime gifts" (Springwood 2009:244).

Second:

"Attempt has been made to connect St. Nicholas, through his relationship with to the Teutonic water spirit, with Odin, who in one of the Edda poems is given the name Hnikar. This particular link between St. Nicholas and Odin has not been successfully established. It is certain, however, that a relationship exists. The time of the St. Nicholas has come to play an important part, coincides in part, coincides in part with the season of the year when Odin, as god of the air, made his nightly rides, or, as god of the dead led through the air the troops of spirits of departed ones. The confidence in time, under Christian influence, left to transfer St. Nicholas of some of the functions of Odin. […] From Odin St. Nicholas inherited his gray horse, which in some Germanic countries he uses in his nightly rides, but which he faded for a reindeer before coming to America. For this horse of St. Nicholas children in parts of Europe leave the hay and oats once let for the horse of Odin. From Odin, too, Santa Claus inherited certain details of his appearance, most notably his long white beard as distinguished from the kind of beard familiar in pictures of the bishop saint" (McKnight 1917:138-139).

McKnight makes some nowadays considered dubious claims (i.e. "god of wind", association with water; apparently via nature school perhaps fashionable at the time), but he's clearly speaking of general discourse like Springwood does much leader. McKnight notably also mentions discourse around potential influence from other North Germanic gods, but our section doesn't cover that at this time and I'd feel more comfortable with that with other sources in hand. The rewrite puts things in context by way of scholarly sources (i.e. 'so there was this thing called Yule') and then notes the existence of discourse regarding connections between Odin and Santa Claus. I think this is the best approach and should be built upon.
I also note that the early iconography of St. Nicholas was apparently similarly a product of syncretism in the Greco-Roman world, as I recall employing iconography from at least one water deity. The early material on the saint could also a rewrite using scholarly sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those quotes. It does still does seem problematic. Springwood's reference to Odin is almost a throwaway line. It is not central to his argument (about black American culture) and cites no sources. McKnight's reference is speculative and rather superficial. Put them together and what have we got? Two random mentions of a vague theory over the course of a century. This seems to be a case of "undue weight".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Both references are academic, span over a wide period of time, and refer to a larger discourse. We can dig up and add more, but we're not here to judge what is a "throwaway line", "superficial", or a "vague theory"; they're obviously not isolated incidents and they're simply examples of the wider discourse. This topic is going to come up any time the topic of the origins of Santa Claus is discussed. I fail to see "undue weight". :bloodofox: (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to tap this larger discourse, not a hundred-year-old source about St Nicholas and an article entitled "If Santa Wuz Black".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

See recent addition to the section and I don't think it matters what the article is called. It's an academic work, relevant, and therefore cited. That said, we can add more to the section, of course. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sensor

I am a father of two. My son searched santa on Yahoo! And the first thing that popped up was Wikipedia clearly stating Santa is not real. He is telling everyone. Our house is chaotic. Please have pages like this sensored. On NORAD Tracks Santa it says "tracks Santa" instead of tracks santa. Kids use Yahoo!, Wikipedia, and the Internet too!Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, but Wikipedia is not censored. If your kid is old enough to do research about a topic of interest on his own, might be time to drop the myth.--Ryudo (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Father Christmas Section

There's very little in this section. The problem is that there is very little reputable information about the pre-Santa Father Christmas. Most of the information on the Father Christmas page is effectively about Santa Claus under another name.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, there's now more material. But some of it's very questionable. What is the evidence that the "Ghost of Christmas Present" is Father Christmas? Then we have Tolkien and Lewis. Since the books are both twentieth century how can their Father Christmases be called predecessors of Santa Claus? And are the examples notable enough to be mentioned here? Father Christmas is a minor character in Narnia, and the Letters are just something Tolkien wrote for his children.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Father Christmas is the British version of Santa Claus. They go together simentaneously, so if we only mention Santa the people in UK will know that Santa is the British version of Father Christmas.Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. Then there's this sentence: "As England no longer kept Saint Nicholas feast day on December 6th, the Father Christmas celebration was moved to December 25 to coincide with Christmas Day." This implies that FC was a version of St Nicholas, which contradicts the thrust of the argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy about deceiving children

Regarding the 'further quoted advantage of the Santa Clause deception' and citation 106: who is Charles J. Jones and in what way does this personal comment in 1967 constitute a citation? This seems speculative. There was a person named Charles W Jones who wrote about Sinterklaas, but this is not a quote from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.96.109 (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Probably a joke.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

santa is fake and wikipedia needs to get its facts right. It can't just say he's real because kids might be reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.241.183 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia has no evidence that Santa Claus is not real, it should not assert that he is merely an anthropomorphic personification. (See "Miracle on 34th Street") 65.19.47.72 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Exempt Word

In the first section 3rd paragraph, it says: " He[Sinterklaas] traditionally rides a white gray." The word horse I believe is missing and shoould be edited. 205.178.103.52 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fictional toymakers

Please add Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors. --72.67.93.68 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rudolph as a Jewish symbol of fertility

According to Jewish history, "Rudolph" the "Red Nosed Reindeer" is a Jewish symbol of fertility and was introduced into the Santa Claus story by Jewish animators and writers who worked for the Walt Disney Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.168.187 (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks like an urban legend. Read the article in interfaithfamily and the article in JTA. The Jewish creator had a daughter, and she liked deers. There is no hidden reason for choosing a deer.
Please feel free to cite any contradicting reliable sources to support your theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy about deceiving children

Please could editors contextualize the opening quotation with an introductory sentence?Catwizzle (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Rudolph (in the "20th Century" of the main article)

The article states "Seabury Quinn’s 1948 novel Roads draws from historical legends to tell the story of Santa and the origins of Christmas. Other modern additions to the "story" of Santa include Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the 9th, only female and the lead reindeer immortalized in a Gene Autry song, written by a Montgomery Ward copywriter."

This should be corrected... Rudolph was not female.

Except they all are, as only female reindeer have horns at that time of year. 59.167.245.193 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fatuous sentence in need of deletion

In the section "Controversy about deceiving children," there appears an utterly fatuous and indefensible sentence about three-fourths of the way in: "It can also be advocated that, although Santa Claus is not real, the Christmas spirit is real." The only citation given for this pseudo-statement is an article from the Huffington Post.

I hope that the reason for my characterization of this sentence is obvious, but in case it isn't I'll point out that "the Christmas spirit is real" doesn't even make sense. I'd go so far as to classify it as a deepity: On a literal level the statement is mundane, i.e.: Yes, people get warm fuzzy feelings at Christmastime, and those warm, fuzzy feelings are often referred to as "the Christmas spirit"; on a metaphysical level, the statement is nonsense, i.e.: No one seriously believes that there is a metaphysical, intelligent, spirit-personality named "the Christmas spirit" that goes around invading our hearts and filling them with good cheer.

The cowardly wording of the sentence's first clause, the combination of passive voice with a hypothetical, noncommittal tone, suggests to me that even the person who wrote it knew on some level that what they were "advocating" (things don't advocate themselves) was stupid. Of course, I have no direct proof of that, but such a position can be advocated. (Sarcasm.)

Sarcasm aside, I see no rational defense of including such a fatuous sentence in a serious encyclopedia article, citation or no citation.

2602:306:BC58:5910:CD71:6E00:39B:A6FB (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There is probably a psychological effect known as the "Christmas spirit" but to add it to the article would require proper academic sourcing. --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

==

I'm removing Greengaroo's edits, on 9th December 2013‎ Greengaroo - I can't see any reson for the addition... Please discuss here if you disagree with me. Severniae (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Proofread paragraph taken from German Wikipedia article

The last paragraph in the Saint Nicholas section seems to have been copied over in hasty translation from the German Wikipedia article. Some native English speaker should go through and straighten out the grammar. For example, the first sentence,

"In his honor were in the Middle Ages children on his name-day, the 6th December, bestowed and often the night before."

is all but unintelligible, and the rest is not much better. Emmagcohen (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

"The remains of Saint Nicholas are Italy." Should read: The remains of Saint Nicholas are in Italy.

JosepheSweeney (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mootros (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

Deweybouldin (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) SANTA IS R3AL! ILy Santa <3 <3 <3 <3 this page needs to be changed. if a small child gets a hold of this and simply wants to research santa's address to send his/her christmas wishlist their poor little heart will be broken. :'( pls save SANTa ILY Mr claus -MORGan FR33m@n

Not done: don't worry, small children already know Santa's address. --Stfg (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest cleaning up this sentence

This is horrible sentence structure and grammar.

"In his honour were in the Middle Ages children on his name-day, the 6th December, bestowed and often the night before."

Suggest:

During the Middle ages, often on the evening before his name day of the 6th of December, children were bestowed gifts in his honour.

69.239.138.248 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. At least that's intelligible. (That whole paragraph appears to be a machine translation -- all its three sources are German). --Stfg (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Lying: Anybody cannot edit

There is a lock on the Santa Claus article. Anyone can edit is a lie.

Please unlock it. If someone edits badly, they can be easily banned.

SantaClausIsTheGreatest (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You can either wait four days and make 10 edits to get edit access to the article, make your suggestions for changes here, or edit our other 4+ million articles. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

Under Saint Nicholas, I see that the word "brought" has been used instead of "taken". I would like to see this corrected.

Drturcotte (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Not sure how this is a correction but I've made the change. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fired for asserting Santa's ethnicity

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/teacher-santa-white-nm/4062189/

Worthy of inclusion yet? Hcobb (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Every year there are stories of "grinches" kicking Santas off private properties, stopping people from dressing as Santa at work, and other foot in mouth situations. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

to replace "Santa Claus's" with "Santa Claus'" Lewis Goudy (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Wikipedia and other style guidelines. See this for example. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa is real!

I mostly always believed Wikipedia into today when it said Santa is fake. WTF Everyone knows Santa is real! WWEUndertakerfan (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Don't say Mythical . for the kids.

88.66.59.33 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage of a topic. They are not dumbed down for kids. Frankly, if a kid is digging around on the internet for info on Santa Claus, their belief won't be lasting very long whether Wikipedia says it or not. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

But but...Santa is not real? If so then I hate this site and I mean it. WWEUndertakerfan (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

I would like to request an edit for the page Santa Claus on Wikepidia.org because some information in the article is no longer accurate. Flowerpower571 (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. What change do you want made? RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

fi:Joulupukki Finiklassanta (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done, on account of it not being clear what should be done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

1.23.171.241 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done, request empty. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional

I'm sure that this suggestion will be controversial, but I think that it should be made absolutely clear in the introduction that Santa Claus is not real. When I read the introduction, I get the sense that words like "legendary" and "mythical" are used to say without saying that this character is a work of fiction, i.e., that any curious children who find the article will either not know what these words mean, or will be reassured by parents that plenty of legendary, mythical people are in fact real.

I can't claim to possess moral certainty on this point; indeed, the section of this article which covers the morality of "lying to children" articulates quite potently the various arguments on all sides of this issue; but at the very least, it must be remembered that the first and foremost duty of Wikipedia is to tell the truth. With that in mind, I'm hardly demanding that phrases like "fictional character" or "not real" be plastered in the introduction, but I don't feel I'd be doing my duty as a reader of Wikipedia if I didn't at least suggest for consideration the possibility that the truth of this subject should be stated plainly and unequivocally in its introduction.

2602:306:BC58:5910:ADF4:8E86:6FDC:7099 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added "fantasy" per what we have in Tooth fairy. --NeilN talk to me 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa is not real? WWEUndertakerfan (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I deeply disagree with this change. Santa Claus is not "fantasy" - Bah humbug to this awful change. The article on God on wikipedia does not say 'fantasy'. And has only one paragraph on atheism compared to a good section in here on the controversy about deceiving children. Telling the truth (if such a truth exists) is not the primary aim of Wikipedia.

One of the five pillars is to write from a neutral point of view. Well to be clear I don't believe Santa Claus to be fantasy and many others agree with me. I believe. Fantasy is the wrong word.

See WP:FRINGE. If you don't think Santa is a fantasy figure then you are clearly in a tiny minority of people over the age of ~10. --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what evidence, what citation? This is the whole problem with how you have approached the word "fantasy" - http://voices.yahoo.com/new-survey-shows-more-people-believe-10340427.html - Based on this poll, more people believe in Santa than God. This poll showed a majority of people believe in Santa Claus when asked http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/11/poll-most-believe-santa-claus-is-real-a-democrat/ - My objection is to the word fantasy - the word mythical is far better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please read your sources better. 1) "The results of the survey showed that 80 percent of people said that given a choice, they would choose Santa Claus as being more credible than God." Putting aside that Yahoo Contributor's Network is not a WP:RS the survey makes no mention if the participants believe in either. 2) "New polling out this week reveals that most voters believe Santa Claus is a Democrat." Nothing about if they believe Santa is real. --NeilN talk to me 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the adjective to mythical per your suggestion. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

With clear evidence it is not a fringe theory, I suggest you follow your own policy that you have quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Another option may be to make it clear, that though Santa Claus is regarded as fantasy, there are many who believe Santa to be real - something along those lines. And you have poll evidence to reference - A few more articles to support that concept - http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/12/11/poll-fewer-nyers-believe-santa/ http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/23474/20131212/hundreds-of-adults-say-they-believe-in-santa - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/santa-real-we-google-for-the-truth-but-a-poll-says-we-believe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And 46% of Americans believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years. Doesn't mean creationism isn't treated as a fringe theory. Wikipedia doesn't rely on polls of random Americans to decide what is fringe. --NeilN talk to me 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The creationism article on wikipedia makes no such "fantasy" claim, it comments on the criticisms of creationism but does not land in favor one way or another. Also the God article makes no such "fantasy" claim, with almost no mention of the fact that their is no evidence God exists. Clearly I am not going to shift your position, but I find it full of hypocrisy. Wikipedia editors are happy to dismiss childhood hopes within a sentence, protecting themselves with policies. And yet would never dare to do the same thing on articles of God or even creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Have thought more about this and want to suggest another problem with the word fantasy. Santa Claus is not fictional, and is not by definition fantasy - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fantasy - There is no author, there is no fictional book which created Santa Claus. Even if we are to accept Santa Claus is not real, he is also certainly not fiction, mythical and legendary (previous descriptions) were still more accurate than the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the fantasy word has been removed. I want to thank you and wish you a Merry Christmas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic: "Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional." I think I can see the Fox News headlines now. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if Santa is real or not? At least we know he WAS real. I believe that he is real... in our hearts and minds. Of course, I go along with it all just for a bit of fun... practice in imagination. :P 186.92.45.178 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on topic here, I have added "fictitious" to the opening sentence for the following reasons:

  1. We all know that Santa Claus in his current incarnation is fake, arguing his existence based on the predecessors from who he was inspired by is equal to calling Norman Bates real because he was loosely based off of Ed Gein.
  2. Going along with the God argument, the simple answer is that Santa Claus can be proved to be fictitious, researchers and explorers who have visited the Earth's North Pole have found no evidence of flying reindeer, no matter your personal beliefs, science has found no way to deny or prove the existence of an Abrahamic God.
  3. Wikipedia isn't censored

felt_friend 22:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the word fictitious should be used so early in the article, especially because searching for Santa Claus in Google displays it as the first result. Wikipedia may not be censored, but it may not be the best idea for it to be visible without even directly accessing the article. (The word mythical also fits better when talking about cultural tradition) 99.107.199.30 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why placing the word anywhere else in the article would make any kind of difference. felt_friend 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel Wikipedia has lost all sense of neutrality. Mythical is a perfectly acceptable word. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fiction - Fictitious is not particularly useful, as there is no author. Instead a small quantity of editors on Wikipedia are determined to not find the right balance, but instead make it very clear that there is no such thing as Santa. Whether there is or not, does not matter. However, the selection of the right words is crucial.

Mythical is the right word, fiction/fantasy is not. This is not based on a belief of Santa or not, but by the definition of the words. Wikipedia editors are distorting definition and then claiming that Wikipedia is not censored. Well given the article is protected and words are being deliberately selected for effect rather than meaning, one might suggest Wikipedia is being censored; by the very editors who are keep quoting Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would advise you to review your opposition to the phrasing. Additionally, saying, "Instead a small quantity of editors on Wikipedia are determined to not find the right balance, but instead make it very clear that there is no such thing as Santa" would be entirely correct seeing as the title of this discussion is "Making it clear that Santa Claus is fictional". Claiming "Whether there is or not, does not matter" is totally inaccurate seeing as Wikipedia exists to document verifiable information, additionally the promotion of such a figure would go against WP:HOAX. Finally, your statement "Well given the article is protected and words are being deliberately selected for effect rather than meaning, one might suggest Wikipedia is being censored; by the very editors who are keep quoting Wikipedia policy." is also inaccurate for a multitude of reasons, mainly the fact that the article is only semi-protected and thus you still could edit it given you make 10 edits from a four-day-old registered account (but then again the purpose of having an account is not to manage a single page). felt_friend 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say that Santa Claus is a mythical figure, which started as a myth. Over the years, a lot of fictional accounts have been added over the years. For example Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I would rather remove "fictional" because Santa Claus himself is mythical, not fictitious. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
How is Santa Claus not fictitious? felt_friend 20:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
How is it that you are to be considered real and not fictional? Like the Velveteen Rabit, other's beliefs. Obviously not yours. htom (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
As per WP:VERIFY, at least two sources in the article already establish that Santa Claus is non-existent (while about.com is arguably refutable, I don't think there should be any debate over the reliability of the NYT). felt_friend 22:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The most printed editorial of all time, and thus has more references than probably anything on Wikipedia is the following article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus - confirming that Santa exists. So not sure we should rely just on sources for this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Editorials aren't reliable sources though as per WP:NEWSORG. felt_friend 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of Santa Claus, "fictitious" is the best fit. Wikipedia is not censored, and that is the only consideration I can think of for not including this word. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Seeing as we seem to be going in circles, I have opened up a discussion at WP:DRN in hopes of finally resolving this debate. I referenced several major parties involved here as well. felt_friend 04:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

semantics: There seems to be some objection to use of the word "fictitious" based on a mistaken understanding of what the word means. Some have assumed it requires the object described to be the product of one or several published works of fiction. It doesn't. It simply describes the object as not real. "fictional" is more likely to relate to written works, but this is not a requirement. The words concerned are all very similar. Anyone wanting to strike down one or another choice had better grab a proper dictionary. I am of the opinion that mythical, fictional, fictitious and "totally not even a little bit real" are all adequate to describe the topic as not being real. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an open dispute on this, but I suggest you take your own advice of looking at a dictionary. Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries go beyond 'not real' to terms like invented. And the root word fiction is very clear, a book or story that is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.150.38 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Santa Claus is a significant force in our culture. What could be debated is whether he is a human-form being who lives at the North Pole, or whether perhaps he is more along the lines of a concept that many people cherish and use to guide certain behaviors. Anyway, whatever the result of this discussion, the identical treatment should be applied to articles on gods and such, since the availability of physical evidence and the cultural effects are identical.72.208.148.85 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarcy paragraph in 'Letter Writing to Santa'

I was reading through the article when I came across this in a paragraph under the section 'Letter writing to Santa': "In Britain it was traditional for some to burn the Christmas letters on the fire so that they would be magically transported by the wind to the North Pole. However this has been found to be less efficient than the use of the normal postal service, and this tradition is dying out in modern times, especially with few homes having open fires".

Undeniably amusing, and I suppose technically correct, but maybe should be worded slightly less tongue-in-cheek?

Dominic (Imperial College) (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Santa Claus in picture

On this page there is a famous picture of Santa Claus and the caption reads: "1881 illustration by Thomas Nast who, with the poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas", helped to create the modern image of Santa Claus." This gives the impression that the poem was written by Thomas Nast. It was written by Clement Clark Moore. This needs to be added into the caption. Franklinreid09 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Changed. --NeilN talk to me 02:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014 - Santa Mail

Within "Letter writing to Santa" the the Operation Santa link is outdated. Please change: "Operation Santa" to "Operation Santa" 56.0.163.15 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the link altogether (external links are not supposed to be in article bodies) but updated the last reference. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014 - Holiday postmarks

Within the "Letter writing to Santa", more information can be provided as USPS has updated their holiday postmark information for 2014.
After:

Those seeking a North Pole holiday postmark through the USPS, are told to send their letter from Santa or a holiday greeting card by 10 December to: North Pole Holiday Postmark, Postmaster, 4141 Postmark Dr, Anchorage, AK 99530-9998.[1]
This content should be added:
For 2014, the USPS has updated their holiday postmark information which includes more details about writing letters to the North Pole and the different stamps/postmarks you can collect in their "2014 Holiday News" web page.
56.0.163.15 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The special postmarks seem to be a program for regular greeting cards and not for letters to Santa. --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014 - Controversy about deceiving children [typographic error]

Ian Lumsden (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Within the large quote from David Kyle Johnson: "espeically" should be "especially". Editorial: instead of spending the two minutes fixing it myself I spent 15 minutes figuring out how to add this information to the talk page because this is a semi-protected page. Vandals are why we can't have nice things.

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

In the controversy section, "loudly" is misspelled as "loundly." Thanks! Mayhewsw (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done The typo is in the source quote but I have corrected it here as it's a simple typographical error (MOS:QUOTE). --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 24th was original date of giving?

It seems these two sentences conflict: "During the Middle Ages, often on the evening before his name day of 6 December, children were bestowed gifts in his honour. This date was earlier than the original day of gifts for the children, which moved in the course of the Reformation and its opposition to the veneration of saints in many countries on the 24 and 25 December." This suggests that the Dec. 6th date is not the original date to give gifts. However, veneration of saints came before the Reformation. 12.203.17.239 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Traditions and rituals

Chimney tradition

Steen's The Feast of Saint Nicholas.

The tradition of Santa Claus entering dwellings through the chimney is shared by many European seasonal gift-givers. In pre-Christian Norse tradition, Odin would often enter through chimneys and fire holes on the solstice.[2] In the Italian Befana tradition, the gift-giving witch is perpetually covered with soot from her trips down the chimneys of children's homes. In the tale of Saint Nicholas, the saint tossed coins through a window, and, in a later version of the tale, down a chimney when he finds the window locked. In Dutch artist Jan Steen's painting, The Feast of Saint Nicholas, adults and toddlers are glancing up a chimney with amazement on their faces while other children play with their toys. The hearth was held sacred in primitive belief as a source of beneficence, and popular belief had elves and fairies bringing gifts to the house through this portal. Santa's entrance into homes on Christmas Eve via the chimney was made part of American tradition through the poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas" where the author described him as an elf.[3]

References

  1. ^ "United States Postal Service (USPS) North Pole Postmarks in a pdf file" (PDF). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  2. ^ http://www.americanchimneyservices.com/apartments/117-the-history-of-santa-claus-and-chimneys.html, retrieved 2007-11-02 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "The History of Santa Claus and Chimneys" ignored (help)
  3. ^ Walsh, Joseph J.. Were They Wise Men Or Kings?: The Book of Christmas Questions. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22312-5.

Mageno (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

S.NICHOLAS WAS NOT GREEK

HE WAS ROMAN, BORN IN PATARA (ROMAN EMPIRE) AND DEAD IN MYRA (EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER KNOWN AS BYZANTINE EMPIRE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.150.8 (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Fraternal Order of Real Bearded Santas

Not sure if I should have started that one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Father Frost

I think that the Russian Father Frost (Dadem Raz) is another important influence. In New York the different immigrant cultures came together: the Dutch and German Saint Nicholas, the English Father Christmas and also the Russian Father Frost. I think Father Frost is a source for the reindeer (Scandinavian rather than North American), and he came from either Lapland in the far north, or Siberia, where people lived in underground huts during the winter, hence the entry through the chimney. There is also a story that the reindeer were used to help find dig up magic mushrooms, which may be associated with the illusion of flying in the sleigh. In terms of deceiving children, it is my opinion that it is fine if phrased with a reasonable element of doubt: rather than stating it as a fact, you can state correctly that people say that Santa Claus delivers presents to good children etc, and behold, in the morning there are presents. 07:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Link the first occurrence of "Saint Nicholas" to: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

208.53.226.225 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

North Hemisphere bias?

This article appears not mentioning a word of Santa when appearing in the Southern Hemisphere. Sometimes I may walk inside some of the buildings in New Zealand, which over there I had been seeing some Santas in swimming togs (swimming costumes) or in other beachwear (because at Christmas, the Southern Hemisphere is summer). Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Long American Civil War quotation (with even longer explication)

I find the long quote re the American Civil War ([2]) rather an odd choice. Among other things, I find it tiresome when a quotation needs so much explaining that the explanation ends up as long or longer than the quotation. What does this illustrate, other than that (a) Santa was a tradition in the American South at the time, and (b) war is not healthy for children and other living things? EEng (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The truth

Santa Claus does exist. Make it clear on the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip J Henderson (talk • contribs) 08:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence adequately covers this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh? WHaT!? NO!!! -- Deltaray (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Jamie.104.235.115.30 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


The entire article leaned in the direction of a believer. SANTA IS REAL. Its fortunate really, because those who read it may think that the writer is telling the truth, when in fact, Santa Clause does exist. Even at a time of religious revelry. I was the oldest child in my family and in later adolescence I excitedly took part in my parents ruse of Santa by herding the younger ones off to bed insisting that Santa won't come if we're not in bed. Sometimes, I assisted in the assembly of toys or filling stockings but every year of my involvement, I was then herded off to bed. Therefore, I never really saw Santa Clause. At least, not the Santa I saw in magazines. But he DID come. I cant remember a single year when he didn't. Every year, whether we lived in a trailer or a huge mansion, whether my father had work not or mother cut ladies hair, there was always the presence of Santa Clause. Every year I saw him in the eyes of my siblings and parents and grandparents and neighbors. So, you tell me. Who gave everyone the ability to give gifts, wish others well, and even caroling in the streets? It was Father Christmas or Saint Nicolas or Kris Kringle or Santa Clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.146.90 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

hate to break it to you buddy buddy but Santa is not real. Sorry to break your hopes but he was real but not of what you think today. Plus the reason your parents wanted you to go up to bed fast is because they put the presents down. Yeah sorry Wkc19 :) (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the controversy part? It clearly states that Santa isn't real. 75.174.202.209 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

I think "Christian" should be removed from the first sentence.

2606:A000:112A:40D1:A025:FB07:956C:1E8D (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not a forum and do not give weight to random opinions. We use reliable sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done. I agree it shouldn't be there, it was recently added without discussion. If the user who added it wishes to discuss here on why it should be added, he can feel free to do so. Crumpled Fire (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason was to clarify what Claus does: He visits households that celebrate Christmas. I'm not sure how this is even remotely controversial. A visit on Christmas Eve (as stated in the edited sentence) with presents meant to be opened as a part of a Christmas celebration presumes the household actually celebrates Christmas, i.e. the household is Christian. But this isn't a part of the description anywhere in the article. He would be quite an unwelcome visitor to a household in any other culture. TwigsCogito (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that it is the belief of people who believe in/observe Santa Claus that he delivers gifts to *all* good boys and girls regardless of religion. Christians don't have a monopoly on goodness. Applejuicefool (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Is that the same as saying that people who believe in/observe Santa Claus also believe (within the confines of the story) that everyone celebrates Christmas? Because the story is just incoherent when you put Santa into a non-Christmas-celebrating household. Either he visits only Christians, or believer are imagining a world in which all of the non-Christians have been deleted. TwigsCogito (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that only Christians celebrate Christmas. Families need not be religiously affiliated to celebrate Christmas. Also, within the confines of the story, Santa Claus is never said to discriminate based on religion. It may be more appropriate to say that he discriminates based on whether the household celebrates Christmas. Thus it would be more accurate to say that he only visits "good, Christmas-celebrating children" but this is obviously redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.99.103 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it's redundant is really the question here. The article said "Santa ... brings gifts to the homes of well-behaved, "good" children on 24 December", followed by "Christmas Eve" in a parenthetical, as if Christmas is just a detail. I've posted a new edit (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Santa_Claus&diff=703956370&oldid=702742335) that reverses what's in/out of the parenthetical, to convey that Santa's visit is tied to the holiday, not to a particular date on the calendar. TwigsCogito (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

Category:Christmas characters 76.88.107.122 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The article is already in the category Category:Santa Claus, which is a sub-category of Category:Christmas characters. clpo13(talk) 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

Shouldn't this article be in Category:Pseudoscience? Fish567 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no one is trying to prove Santa's existence by using science. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond to such a ridiculous question, but I'll just concur with Neil. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 01:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016


The punctuation and some of the grammar are a bit off, so I would like to make corrections as appropriate.

192.104.181.237 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DMacks (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Shocking this page exists...and uses mythological in first paragraph.

Hi - My 7-year-old niece had her belief in Santa totally annihilated by this page. She spent Christmas day crying in her room after getting a pad for Christmas and googling Santa. Children are being taught to use google in schools long before they lose belief in Santa and when googling Santa the first paragraph tells them straight away that he is mythological. There is no need to do this in the first paragraph. Santa is based upon the st. nicholas and the history of the character should be what they are told about - you don´t even need to open the page up before children are told he is not real !!! Is this necessary? Even google themselves do not this. Please, can you consider to amend it to be much more ambiguous - especially in the first paragraph which appears straight under any search for "Santa" and the like of...

Few younger children will make it through a history lesson about him before they get to the paragraph which discusses / explains that he does not exist. Pipjol (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The lead provides a summary of the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it should provide a summary of the article. However, I understand how it can be very upsetting for children. Could we change the wording a bit? Instead of saying, "... is a mythical figure with historical origins..." could we change it to say something along the lines of, "is a legendary symbol of Christmas with historical origins..."? Still gives the correct information but the wording may not alarm children in the way that "mythical" does. Kpayne2 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the wording can and should be changed... for the same reason we don't open other articles like "Spider-Man is a mythological figure", or "God is a mythological figure", we shouldn't do it for Santa. How is the unfounded devout belief of children any different than the unfounded devout beliefs of adults? You can't disprove Santa's existence any more than God's existence, but we seem to give the idea of God and other religious figures more credence by default. It's biased. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Every year we have this debate, thankfully this year it has been changed to legendary and the balance is right. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/King_Arthur is an example of a very similar article which also uses this approach. There are not lots of people battling to change this every year. - Santa's Little Helper

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

SANTA ISNT REAL DONT LIE TO THE CHILDREN!!! 73.96.112.146 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

no No action It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Santa Claus

THEY ARE FAKE AND DO NOT EXIST.

GO ASK YOUR PARENTS WHY THEY LIE TO YOU AND DO NOT SET A GOOD EXAMPLE.

SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuQNQBbl0Ak (gradeaundera, retrieved 24th December) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16rl (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Which bit of "legendary" is difficult to understand? Jim Whitaker (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Santy Claus

As you know, Santa Claus is a fictional character made for the entertainment of children. In the 1900's little boys and girls called him 'Santy Claus' officially creating another name for this old jolly man.

That's like sying that "lieberry" and "kindygarden" are other names for library and kindergarten. "Santy Claus" is just baby talk, not an alternate name. 77Mike77 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017

1 - CHANGE "Related figures in folklore" BY REMOVING "Befana In Italian folklore, an old woman who plays a role similar to Santa Claus"

As the "Befana" has different origins, visual aspect and behavior. See https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befana The italian equivalent of Santa Claus before modern times was St Nicholas (San Niccolò di Bari) still celebrated the 6th of Dec. See https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Nicola_di_Bari 93.42.187.80 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. I concur with the request, and reasons. Several of the other entries in the list don't belong, either, for similar reasons, but I've left those for now. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

History: Origins

This needs to be amended. "merged with the English character Father Christmas to create the character known to Americans and the rest of the English-speaking world as "Santa Claus""

In fact, there has been no merger. While Americans use the 'Americanized' Santa Claus, in the UK at least, we use Father Christmas. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Lifetime experience in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranrising (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect modification request

Hi, Ho ho ho redirects here (should probably redirect to the section Ho, ho, ho), and there should be a {{redirect}} hatnote linking to [[Ho ho ho (disambiguation)|the corresponding disambiguation page. An existing link in the article to the redirect should also lead to the aforementioned dab. 165.91.12.213 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you type out exactly what you think the text should look like? CityOfSilver 06:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done for now:@165.91.12.213:, the redirect change requested is reasonably clear but unfortunately, can't be performed without administrator attention because the page Ho ho ho is currently fully protected. I suggest you use the Talk:Ho ho ho page to repeat the request with either the {{Admin help}} template or the {{Edit fully-protected}} template to get admin attention. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

Sinterklaas day is not on December 6th but on December 5th. I know, because i'm Dutch 94.210.154.251 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is more complicated that it first seemed. I found some sources for December 5th, more for December 6th. In the end I opted to stay consistent with the Sinterklaas article which says "The feast of Sinterklaas celebrates the name day of Saint Nicholas on 6 December. The feast is celebrated annually with the giving of gifts on St. Nicholas' Eve (5 December) in the northern parts of the Netherlands and on the morning of 6 December, Saint Nicholas Day, in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, as well as Belgium, Luxembourg and northern France (French Flanders, Lorraine and Artois)." NeilN talk to me 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Ho ho ho" represents a type of laugh or chuckle.

"...and saying "ho ho ho" often" The word "saying" is wrong here. Does a sneezing person say "achoo"? It is like a five year-old wrote that sentence in the article. The material later on about "ho ho ho" is good. Maybe change to "...and laughing in a way that sounds like 'ho ho ho'"77Mike77 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa Claus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Improvement for the greek origin of Santa Claus

NikoloCh (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)NikoloCh

In order to clarify the validity of section 1.1 of this article, I suggest the improvement by changing Saint Nicholas to Basil of Caesarea, redirecting to this [1]. At the orthodox tradition, he was the well-known for his charities and merciful actions, that's why we are parallelizing his figure to the modern Santa Claus. If you notice in the Commemoration Section of my ref, you would understand the contradiction. Maybe we have to add something like this "For Greeks and others in the Orthodox tradition, St Basil is the saint associated with Santa Claus as opposed to the western tradition of St Nicholas." cited correctly in the ref page. I would be happy to translate in Greek also and further clarify the references.

@NikoloCh: The only relevant content in the target article is, "For Greeks and others in the Orthodox tradition, St Basil is the saint associated with Santa Claus as opposed to the western tradition of St Nicholas." which is unsourced. Note also the bolded part - Basil as a precursor to Santa Claus is a minority view. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

NikoloCh (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I see that sources must be inserted like this "http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/athens/article/st-nicolas-santa-claus-or-st-basil.html", maybe you think this is a minority view, but you can't think there are no facts certifying my edit. Moreover, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not your view.

@NikoloCh: That site consists of user generated content and so is not considered a reliable source. You're right that Wikipedia content does not consist of my views. It consists of what reliable sources say. Find sources that support your change and contradict sources in Santa Claus, Sinterklaas, and Saint Nicholas and then we can discuss. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea

Origins

In Germany, St. Nikolaus brings gifts to children on December 6. He is not considered to be the same person as the "Christmas Man" (Weihnachtsmann) on Christmas. St. Nikolaus did really exist, and traditional legend has it that he actually helped poor and endangered children. Happy St. Nikolaus day, everyone! 2003:C8:BBCD:4639:9481:C954:5280:FAA3 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Tacked on and completely unrelated information

This sentence...

"The flying reindeer could symbolize the use of fly agaric by Sámi shamans.[28] "

appears to be someone's afterthought and lends nothing useful to the main article. There could just as well be a sentence saying, "the chimney through which Santa descends could symbolize shamanistic phallic worship".....In other words it's stupid and pure conjecture and doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

User:Crumpled Fire, I'd be happy to talk to you about the allegedly controversial changes that you reverted twice, if I could figure out which changes were actually controversial. I've been assuming that it's not changing "fourth-century" to "4th-century" (i.e., in compliance with the WP:MOS), but maybe you could either restore the changes that you don't object to, or you could maybe just tell me which ones you object to, and maybe even why? Otherwise, I don't actually know how to have this conversation, because you haven't told me what your actual objection is, even though I did ask in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit looks good to me. I don't know what's controversial about making the lead better reflect the body of the article. It would be nice if Crumpled Fire could clarify their objections to the edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The controversial item in question is the bit at the bottom, one tiny sentence all isolated on its own, about kids learning "the truth" about Santa around age 8. First of all this is subjective, we don't say Christians learn the truth about God when they talk to an atheist, and there's about as much evidence for God as Santa, and like God many millions of people genuinely believe in him. It's especially problematic adding this a mere days before Christmas, without attaining consensus, in a very visible portion of the article. Many discussions have been had about saying "fictional character" in the lead before, and consensus was to use "legendary", thereby making the article's POV about Santa's existence generally agnostic in the lead, just as it is for gods who many adults believe in, despite many other adults telling them it isn't real.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I also object to the edits, although for different reasons. It is inaccurate to say that "combines multiple Christian and non-Christian traditions" when many scholars state that Santa Claus is derived chiefly from the Christian traditions surrounding Saint Nicholas. I hope this helps. AnupamTalk 00:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Anupam, I understand that the *modern* Santa Claus combines multiple traditions, some of which are Christian (e.g., St Nick's name) and some of which are not (e.g., reindeer flying through the sky). Do you believe that there are no significant non-Christian traditions in the *modern* Santa Claus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn't take an "agnostic" point of view, and indeed a point of view like that would be totally inappropriate when reliable sources are very clear that Santa Claus is not a real person. (The same can't be said of the Christian god, a figure about whom reliable sources disagree or indicate controversy.) The fact that Christmas is later this month is basically irrelevant to the discussion. The number of people who believe in the literal existence of a given figure is also mostly irrelevant—what's relevant is what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The sentence about learning the truth is uncited and probably cannot be cited. I don't know that anyone has ever done research on when children cease to believe in Santa. I have known younger children who did not believe and older children who did. --Khajidha (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Khajidha, I think you'll find that this information is already cited in the body of the article. But if you'd like more, then please see:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
This New York Times article says that the age of discernment has been stable for decades (85% of five year olds believe that Santa is real, and 75% of eight year olds don't), but that it might be falling, at least in Australia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting! I'd say it's worth mentioning the findings from the Australian study in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
One of the surveys said that about a third of adults wish that they still believed in Santa Claus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Crumpled Fire, Granger, Anupam, Khajidha, let's get back to this. I think the first question is: Should this article take an "agnostic" view of whether Santa Claus exists/flies through the sky in a magic sleigh/delivers presents to all the children? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume that's a rhetorical question. Taking an agnostic view on the literal existence of Santa Claus would make a mockery of WP:V and WP:NPOV. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a serious question. User:Crumpled Fire's first comment above indicates that "making the article's POV about Santa's existence generally agnostic in the lead" (but not necessarily in the body of the article?) was the approach editors had settled on in the past. Boldly contravening that decision didn't work, so I think we should be talking about it. I don't want to do that, and you apparently don't want to do that, but what do others think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to be certain that this is fully settled, so that there can be no doubt about the community's view on how to handle this page. I'm thinking about an WP:RFC, like this, and I'd love to have help from anyone in getting short, fair descriptions of the pros and cons in it.
Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?
Yes, it should be agnostic. No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.
  • Kids might read the article, and some of them (and their parents) might be upset if we say that the modern Santa Claus is fictional character, and that all the grown-ups know that Santa doesn't exist.
  • Anyone, including kids, who reads the introduction to this article should be told that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.
Note that this isn't a proposal to go over the top with this. I would like a well-written intro, which does not mean harping repeatedly on the non-existence of a guy who has a flying sled and magic reindeer and goes down chimneys to deliver toys built by magic elves in the North Pole. But I'd like to be clear about whether "preserving the magic" for the <1% of readers who are young enough to think that Santa is "real" is a goal, non-goal, or anti-goal for the intro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it's better for the RFC text to focus on what the article should include rather than the pros and cons behind it. So, don't ask people to decide whether readers "might be upset", just ask them whether the lead should indicate whether or not Santa Claus exists. (Of course people being upset might be part of some participants' reasoning.) I might suggest wording more like this:
Should the introduction to the article be "agnostic" about the existence of the modern Santa Claus?
Yes, it should be agnostic. No, the lead should be clear that Santa Claus does not exist.
  • The lead should not make claims about the literal existence of Santa Claus; readers who are unfamiliar or uncertain should not be told whether or not he is actually a real, currently living person.
  • Anyone who reads the introduction to this article should be told that Santa Claus is not actually a real, currently living person.
It might even be better to have an RFC on specific text, as it can be easier to get agreement on that than on general principles. That said, I'm not sure an RFC is necessary at all. It seems to me that Crumpled Fire is the only person in this discussion who objects to clarifying Santa Claus's literal existence. Khajidha's sourcing concern has been addressed, and Anupam's concern is about an unrelated issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I like that. What do you think about giving some specific examples of possible changes after the table? In other words, the specific examples are not the main focus, but there might be less confusion about what's intended in terms of near-term practicalities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_Claus/Archive_10&oldid=1140179805"