|
DBachmann was making a few edits and drew my attention to the fact that there is another article for Father Christmas. The two are interchangeable terms for the same person, and a lot of the information from one article is duplicated in the other. I think that both articles would be better served by merging the two and contrasting the differences of interpretation. Any merger of course would have the appropriate redirects. Because we are moving into that season, this should probably be acted upon after a moderate amount of discussion. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst they do not have exactly the same history and etymology, there is a lot of overlap with modern usage. A problem is with which merges into which and what title to use, also there are many others terms used for the same or slightly different characters in various countries, we cannot merge them all. So i have to oppose a merger. --neon white talk 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, both articles already do exactly the same thing currently - and they use the same terms! As for which would be the merged-to and and which would be the merged-from, well, that's what this discussion is for. Wikipedia doesn't do duplicates. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Both articles need, in their leads, to do more to show the differences between the characters. Father Christmas is not Santa Claus, and vice versa. They are two different, umm, beings. Maybe brothers. Maybe two aspects of one being? But not the same, even so. I've seen them both at the same time. ;) htom (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Otter, silliness aside, what precisely do you mean when you say that they are not the same? They are two different nicknames for the same personage. Unless, of course, you have citation indicating they are different 'manifestations.'- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Christmas_gift-bringers_around_the_world; I've always thought of Father Christmas as being the ancient (Druid? but why then Christmas, ahh, appropriation) while Santa was a descendant of (but not) St. Nicholas. There are a number of winter-time gift givers, there is no need for us to extend the confusion by claiming that they are all one. Yes, I'm rather silly about Santa & friends, as I think that's the best way to show the importance. I will get that page from Hogfather typed in, and soon. htom (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The two are not, as you say, interchangeable terms for the same person. As is explained in the article, they are merely (incorrectly?) treated as synonyms by many, while they seem to have quite distinct histories (Father Christmas Pagan; Santa Claus Christian). Therefore a merge is no more justified than, say, a merge of schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder - another two terms that are frequently wrongly treated as synonymous by laypeople. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- TaalVerbeteraar, it isn't a vote (at least, not yet); no need for the shiny little icons just yet. Addressing your argument that the two are incorrectly treated as alternative names - could we trouble you to find a citation that addresses this, or are you expressing a personal opinion as citation? Now, before you answer that, or get all huffy, take a moment and actually read the Father Chirstmas and Santa Claus articles side by side; they are virtually the same. In point of fact, the Father Christmas article's content could be merged to this article quite easily. A larger task would be to merge all fo the content from Santa Claus to Father Christmas; slightly difficult, but by no definition of the word would it be un-encyclopedic. Perhaps you could provide a citation or three for us laymen so we can lend the weight to your arguments you wish them to have. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I find it quite amusing that someone who started the discussion with the words "the two are interchangeable terms for the same person" now accuses me of making unsourced claims. I actually did read the articles; the Father Christmas one even has this in its intro: Although "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" have for all practical purposes been merged, historically the characters were different. If you are so sure that they aren't, why don't you first rewrite the articles (with references) to reflect your view and only then propose a merge again? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not as amused, apparently. I asked you - rather clearly, I thought - to present citations that the two are not alternative names for one another in current, common usage. Now, you may present that (or those) citation(s), but please do not waste my or your time asking for what is presented in both articles. I await your citations, Taal. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I joke about it, I don't find it especially amusing. Do you have any citations showing that they are indeed the "same person", other than the (is it SYN or OR) noticing of the coincidence in the articles, which coincidence and overlap is, in one of the two articles, explicitly declared to be an error? htom (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Still awaiting citation from you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you asked me rather clearly. Then what's left for me other than to obey your orders, my master? What you're doing is a classical case of shifting the burden of proof. It's you who proposed the merge, so it's you who should come up with references. Not htom and me. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, maybe you could sidestep the Snarky responses, as I am 1) better at it than you, and 2) it doesn't benefit the polite discussion of the problem. I asked you for citation in defense of your opposition. I will assume good faith enough and think that I was unclear in what I was expecting, and not take the low road of assuming that you are stalling while seeking references in defense of your position.
- So - again - I apologize for perhaps not being clear: is was my understanding that you felt the merge should not occur, as the two fictional characters were completely different, like Frodo and Samwise, Batman and Midnighter, or Donner and Blitzen - right?
- Your opposition further stipulates that I need to prove that the two fictional characters are synonymous. Am I correct? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay I think everyone needs to chill out for a second and stop making the sarcastic comments at each other as this is not helping the discussion. Arcayne, since you proposed the merge and it is being opposed you should probably find some sources that would back up your proposal. If you find any then it is up to the opposition to produce sources that state otherwise. I am not siding with either party and just thought that it best that someone comes in to ease the arguments before they spiral out of control. Dark verdant (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal: subsection - sources in support of merging as essential duplicates
As has been suggested above, here are some sources (from both sides of the Herring Pond):
- From The Telegraph (London): 1, 2, 3†, 4, the last noting that both Father Christmas and Santa are both secular interpretations of Saint Nicholas, and are used interchangeably.
- From US' AP (reporting from Geneva, Switzerland): 5
- From Reuters (from Germany): 6 also interesting in noting a Santa "shortage"
- From the New York Times: 7, 8
- From The Age (Australia): 9
† Also a nice source, where Prez-Elect Obama nearly revealed the truth about Santa'
And these independent gems:
- Newser links to different stories, using FC, SC SN interchangeably
- Santatelevision.com
- Happychristmas.org.uk
- commercial site listing the two synonyms
Some other sources:
- a a good source of the religious resistance to a Santa/Father Christmas-type figure as a papist stand-in
- b noting that while the two are interchangeable
- c detailed history of Santa/Father Christmas origin and evolution
- d "Father Christmas is a Post-Reformation English equivalent of Santa Claus". Btw, a citation for Dickens' "Ghost of Christmas Present" from The Christmas Carol exists here.
- e "There is no need for the secularized Santa Claus/Father Christmas when St Nicholas, who was born in 260 AD and died December 6343 AD..."]
- f a good source regarding the commercialization of American collective memory
Lastly, a la Miracle on 34th Street, the US Postal Service considers the two the same entity (1), issuing stamps for the interchangeable identity (2). So does the Royal Mail postal delivery service of the UK. While I haven't the time to really check, I suspect the same would be found no matter which country's postal service I were to query. Postal services, as governmental agencies, are eminently citable as notable sources. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) (opposing, I suppose) from http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/xmas/pages/english.htm
The Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore (Oxford, 2001) entry on the English Father Christmas, quoted below, considers him to be a pre-Reformation and medieval Yule-tide visitor who is entirely separate from St Nicholas and Sinterklaas, only being combined with him (and thus becoming associated with giving presents to children) in the 1870s. There is also some brief comment on Father Christmas in Ronald Hutton's The Stations of the Sun, available as a limited preview via Google Books.
See also http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/xmas/pages/history.htm and http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/xmas/ htom (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Prolly because of the edit conflict, you added some of the same sources I did. What you might have missed in those very same sources was the cited statement that they are used interchangeably. Are there differences? Sure, just like Kerstman is different from Moş Crăciun - both are interpretations for the same character. No one is arguing that they don't have some differences which reflect the culture the basic giftgiver idea is introduced into, but they are are all facets of the same character. It is encyclopedic to denote them and - as they are used synonymously with each other in the overwhelming majority of sources - combine them when helpful. There isn't any serious person who thinks that when you say Father Christmas, you aren't also thinking of Santa Claus. I mean, come on, now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that some said that they were "used interchangeably", not that they are, or ever were, the same. Encyclopedic is to make necessary distinctions, not mush things together because it's popular to do so (and we do that :( at times, AES and Rijndael coming to mind.) Father Christmas, to me, is the personality that brings a party to visit families (usually bringing adult beverages) at Yuletide; Santa is the personality who secretly brings presents to children. You may think of them as being the same; I don't. Sorry. Different family traditions, I suppose. htom (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I can understand why you would think they are different, OtterSmith - editing Santa Claus is treading upon every kid's childhood with muddy shoes. However, we aren't here to preserve out cherished childhood Christmastimes; we are - as you noted - here to make an encyclopedia. I am not the only one who considers them the same (as evidenced by the wealth of usages from different countries): most people use the two (if not more terms) interchangeably, and that's who our articles are written for. The current Santa Claus article allows for and accommodates the distinctions between interpretations you make. Could it be improved? Show me a wiki article that doesn't, and I will show you a unicorn that does porn. I am saying that this seems a fairly straight-forward approach to making the Santa Claus article that much more encyclopedic. We cannot have two articles that are essentially duplicates of one another. The Father Christmas article is shorter, and contains much of the info already here. As Father Christmas appears to have been interpreted from St. Nick before Santa was (more or less), the progression of the article should reflect that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the world is much more complex than the proposed mapping of Father Christmas == Santa Claus. You're going to have to deal with Saint Nicholas and Sinterklaas as well, and the 5 Dec -- 25 Dec problem. There is not a "tree of descent" of the ancestors of Santa; it's a mishmash web of crossing influences, denials, usurpations, forbiddings, and appropriations. It would make more sense to me to first merge Sinterklaas and Santa, and to merge St. Nick and Father Christmas, and then merge those two (although I'd oppose those mergers, too.) And I'd really oppose merging Hogfather with any of them, even if there were to be pornographic unicorns. htom (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The world might be more complex, but this particular merging situation isn't. As you oppose any merge (your words, not mine), your assessment of how to go about the merge isn't helping here. It seems a straw man argument. Most folk don't confuse Sinterklaas with Santa, or Hogfather with Father Christmas.
- Most people use Santa Claus and Father Christmas - and they use them interchangeably. I do believe I've now said that at least a half-dozen times. I've clearly cited it used thusly. You asked for citations showing they are used synonymously. I've done that. I ttally dig that you cannot merge the two in your head (as per your previous explanation), but instead of saying 'I don't like it', you now need - as was requested of you - to bring forth citations that counter the dozen or so citations noting the interchangeable usage of both.
I'm gonna break a few rules in this post - fair warning. First of all, OR: I think the difference is a regional or national thing, no? Exclusive use of "Santa Claus" is more common in the US (we know who Father Christmas is, but we rarely if ever use the term), while "Father Christmas" (and linguistic variations thereof - e.g. "Pere Noel") is more common in some European countries and their former colonies. Ooops, just did a check - Pere Noel has its own article! Should we include him in the merge?!? My own personal feeling is that they are all the same person. That said, I also believe they should have separate articles. Why? Here's another rule break - I'm going to analogize the "Santa, etc." articles to another set: Jehovah, Yahweh, and Allah. All three are talking about the same being, yet there are three separate articles. Is that wrong? No, people will be looking for their own "brand" of Santa and be disappointed when they are redirected to somebody else's brand. Just like a Muslim would be outraged if he looked up "Allah" and was redirected to "Jehovah". The great thing about Wikipedia is that we have the space for separate articles, for just this type of case. I suggest leaving them separate, but putting more effort into distinguishing Father Christmas from Santa Claus. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just another addition - While I believe the two are talking about the same person, the names have different usages. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Father Christmas, you'll see that it makes much of him as a *personification* of Christmas itself - much like Father Time is a personification of Time; while Santa Claus is generally seen more an actual magical being that lives at the North Pole and brings gifts. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I myself use both santa clause and father christmas to mean the same thing but thats just how I was brought up. So I can understand why you would want to merge however I believe Applejuice brings up a very good point regarding allah/jehova/yahweh and I guess the same could be said here. How about going through each article with a fine toothed comb and see if any duplicate information can be changed removed and add more to the articles that are lacking info? Dark verdant (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
New article proposal: subsection - a third article
(very hand-wavy)
Having now reread both articles, I have to agree that they have a great deal in common, much of it having to do with the modern Santa, and they should not have. The solution, though, that I see, is that we need another article, so that we have three, rather than the current two, or merging them into a confusing single article:
- Father Christmas (perhaps a descendant of the early mummers' Lords of Misrule or the Yule King or somesuch),
- Santa Claus (probably descended from St. Nickolas and Sinterklass), and
- Santa (the modern descendant of both, and a commercial figure, who has aspects of both, and is easily supported by the citations put forward favoring the merge, which are implying that the two have merged.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)
- I don't see that as workable. Otter. What might be more effective is to describe both of these in separate subsections of the main History section. There would appear to be the smartest method by which the progression/evolution/appropriation/whatever can be addressed encyclopedically. All of the figures are in essence the same personage (by end result if not by design); it seems silly for us to insist that we not censor Wikipedia regarding the nature of Santa and then not address the fact that all of the historically evolved gift-giver-types have melded into a single figure. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which "main History" section are you thinking of using, Arcayne? And they haven't "melded into a single figure". There are still qualitative differences between Santa Claus and Father Christmas; as I pointed out above, even our own Wikipedia articles note that Father Christmas is more often seen as an incarnation of Christmas itself, while Santa Claus is more often seen as a supernatural being, whether an actual human Saint with magical powers, or some type of elf or fairy creature. I'll see if I can find more web documentation on these differences. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Father Christmas as the whole"spirit of Christmas" thing isn't cited. In either article. I don't mind you seeking out documentation to support the differences, but remember that they should serve to contrast the dozen references presented earlier that the two are indeed the result of melding - they are considered synonymous beings.
- I understand that allowing our childhoods to have free rein in this discussion is sorely tempting, but please keep in mind that how we were encultured with the Santa/Father Christmas ideal has very, very little bearing on this discussion. Is Father Christmas used more in the UK than here? Sure, but even British media consider them synonymous, as evidenced int he citations above. Was Father Christmas a construct in existence before the modern day Santa Claus? Again, sure. Does this mean that the cultural differences of your regional gift-giver make them an entirely different person? Hell, no. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Still looking...I've found a few but I'm still working on it. I did want to mention that in several of your references, I find nowhere where it definitively stated "Father Christmas and Santa Claus are the same person". For instance, your first article from the Telegraph. It talks about a dad who dresses up as Santa Claus and as Father Christmas. What evidence is that that they're the same person? In #2, every reference where the reporter is using his/her own voice, he/she uses "Fathe Christmas". Whenever the store officials are being quoted or paraphrased, it's Santa. They're not used interchangeably. In #3, the only reference to "Father Christmas" is in the headline. As a former reporter, I know headline errors are incredibly common. #4 is exactly the same article as #3. In #5, the reporter is just making the point that Santa has analogues all over the world - I don't think anyone is arguing that Pere Noel and Saint Nicholas are exactly the same as the modern Santa Claus. The only reference to "Father Christmas" in #6 is in a quotation from a person hiring Santas and Father Christmases. I don't agree that it's used interchangeably, and even if it is, it's the opinion of this one guy, not the news organization. There's absolutely nothing about Father Christmas in #8, unless I'm missing something. In #9, Santa and Father Christmas are not used interchangeably. In the text of the article, one guy talks about Father Christmas, while the others talk solely about Santa. The headline uses FC; as I've noted, headlines are tragically unreliable. Also, it could have been referring to the one guy in the article who was talking about FC rather than Santa.
- Anyway, I'll stop there, and end this Wall of Text with the following observation - just because people use their *names* interchangeably doesn't mean Father Christmas and Santa Claus are the same *person*. A (slightly, I realize) similar example is the comic book characters "Captain Marvel" and "Shazam". They are two very different characters, but because they both appeared in a comic series named "Shazam!", and because Captain Marvel was the main character, and because he said "Shazam!" to turn into a super hero, many people incorrectly assume that his name is Shazam. Just because their names are used interchangeably doesn't make them the same person.Applejuicefool (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- With respect to your history in journalism, it isn't a mistake. It happens over and over, as evidenced by the citations, which isn't a paraphrasing. When it is used often enough, it becomes MOS, like repeating Santa over and over again. However, most of that - including your take on journalism and how we interpret "opinions" as being different from the source they are printed in (btw, did any of those "opinion" sources have a disclaimer on the page? I thought not) - is uncited speculation. The sheer fact is that the two are utilized interchangeably. Please, provide citations to the fact that they are not used thusly in the modern age. I've shown they are. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Santa", five characters; "Santa Claus" 10-11 characters; "Father Christmas", 12-15 characters. I'll wager you've rarely written headlines for publication? Headlines are to grab attention, not to provide information. In some systems they're created after the article writer has gone home, and she only sees them when she sees the paper (or the web page) when it's published. htom (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Headline writing is often done by "How many characters do I need to fit on this line?" Not necessarily what is exactly correct, not even necessarily by what is shortest, but what fits. If "Santa" or "Santa Claus" is too short, you can bet a headline writer will jump to "Father Christmas", especially if he/she's British. If Father Christmas is too long, one of the shorter versions comes into play. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your reply rather serves to illustrate my point, fellers. While the note about headlines is very likely, it serves to point out that when they substitute the word Santa for the longer Father Christmas, everyone knows that they are the same personage, and substitute it for that very reason. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are doing synthesis or personal knowledge, then. Reliable sources say that they're different. Even we say that they're confused, and that can only happen if they're different. htom (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Synthesis and personal knowledge is perfectly legitimate for those journalists to use; we as wiki editors don't get to use it - that's an important difference, OtterSmith. Remember that the litmus for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. We have verified that the two are treated synonymously by numerous sources, and not just for headline purposes, but in the body of articles as well. Reliable, notable sources also say they are used interchangeably. Because they are used thusly, we should note the differences via section (or subsections of history) and deal with it that way. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Two points: 1. Just because their *names* are used interchangeably doesn't mean the *characters* are interchangeable; and 2. Even if Santa and FC are the same person (and I'm not conceding that), it doesn't follow that they don't deserve separate articles (as per the Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah analogy above). Is there some WP guideline that we're violating by having both articles? And what about Pere Noel, should we merge him too? Applejuicefool (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, please don't answer my questions with questions, Applejuicefoot. I could just as easily ask what WP guideline or policy we are mangling by merging both articles.
- Secondly, you keep comparing this situation to the Jehovah/Yaweh/Allah distinction. That in fact is a fallacious argument; while they are in fact the same person, they are culturally envisioned differently. They are most certainly not used as synonyms of each other by their adherents. Jews don't call their God Allah, any more than the Muslim calls Him Jehovah. In the case of this article, "adherents" -ie, the people of a given geographical region or culture, call the same person both Santa and Father Christmas.
- We could engage in philosophical debate about this all we want, despite my discomfort with tying this debate to a religious one - Grampa always said to avoid discussing religion unless you are talking to a child or a priest, or are either yourself - the fact remains that there is reliable, citable evidence noting the interchange-ability of the two. The practical application of this is that these cultural differences can be explained in a single article. I think its silly and somewhat inane to place one's childhood reminiscence above a merge. No insult is intended. I am simply not seeing a valid reason to not merge. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Modern usage and historical usage
Arcayne, you state above that "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" are interchangeable "in the modern age." I must agree that this often is the case, but this is the result of cultural cross-pollination. You appear to acknowledge the existence of historical differences (which have blurred over the course of time), and I don't regard these as minor details warranting nothing more than sections within a single article.
And as previously noted, "interchangeable" ≠ "synonymous." The fact that "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" can serve the same purpose does not mean they they're a single entity. Certainly, it's become common to ascribe very similar (or even identical) characteristics to "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus," but even today, they aren't always regarded as one and the same character. I actually know a gentleman who dresses as both (with separate costumes and personae, reflecting the differing traditions).
So I oppose the proposed merger. —David Levy 17:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello David. Respectfully, I think that, in this specific case, "interchangeable" does equal "synonymous." You agree that its common to ascribe similar (or identical) characteristics to the two. While you know folk that differentiate the two, I am sure that they are also aware of the interchangeability of the two names. It's like people who use "oriental" and "Asian" to describe people from Asia, you say either one, and folk know of what you speak. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it has become common to ascribe similar or identical characteristics to figures known as "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus." But this is not universal, nor does it reflect the substantial historical differences between the two characters. Wikipedia's purpose isn't merely to document the present, and it's clear that the typical portrayals of "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" historically differed greatly. The fact that one has come to strongly resemble the other in popular culture doesn't erase that history or negate the differing traditions that are recognized to this day. —David Levy 18:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but no one is suggesting we fail to recognize those, David. No one is suggesting that we would be negating or erasing anything; all the material would be in a common article. That is why we have history sections in articles, to show the development of myths and legends. Additionally, we also use sections to differentiate between different interpretations of the same subject. We can do that here. In fact, I think I'll try to sandbox up a version and prepare a DIFF so that folk can see what I am aiming at. The ony real question we really need to address is where to merge to. I think Father Christmas is the older concept, so Santa can redirect to there after the content is merged and arranged - but that's just what I reckon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quoting myself:
- You appear to acknowledge the existence of historical differences (which have blurred over the course of time), and I don't regard these as minor details warranting nothing more than sections within a single article.
- "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" are not two names for "the same subject." In modern usage, the term "Father Christmas" can refer to a character that is essentially the same as "Santa Claus," but it also can refer to a substantially different figure with a substantially different history and substantially different traditions attached. —David Levy 21:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- David, I respectfully submit that I have provided (above) numerous citations where they are used precisely as two names for the same subject, and practically anyone could find via a simple Google search hundreds more.
- As well, to use the converse of your argument, the term "Santa Claus" can refer to a character that is essentially the same as "Father Christmas". Both have differences - and the number of differnetiation is (by your own admission) somewhat blurry. That there are differences is not is not in dispute. While I disagree over the amount of different traditions (substantially is, as you know, a peacock wording), these are not insurmountable issues within a single article. We break articles into sections (or, in this case, subsections of the 'History' section) for this very reason. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I could provide numerous citations where the terms "podium" and "lectern" are used precisely as two names for the same subject. This proves nothing more than the fact that the former's name has become popularly attached to the latter (just as the term "Father Christmas" has become popularly attached to characteristics traditionally associated with Santa Claus). And in each case, the term ("podium" or "Father Christmas") continues to carry its original connotation in addition to the one that it shares with another term ("lectern" or "Santa Claus").
- A difference is that it can reasonably be (and I certainly have) argued that it's incorrect to refer to a lectern as a "podium." Conversely, I'm not arguing that it's incorrect to use the term "Father Christmas" to refer to a Santa Claus-like character (let alone denying that this commonly occurs), but you seem to [incorrectly] believe that this is the only modern relevance of the term "Father Christmas."
- The term "Father Christmas" formerly referred exclusively to a figure that was very different from the one known as "Santa Claus." He was a personification of Christmas (which Santa Claus isn't), he dressed differently, and he didn't deliver gifts to children (probably the characteristic for which Santa Claus is best known).
- Eventually, the American concept of Santa Claus spread elsewhere and the characteristics traditionally associated with him were assigned to Father Christmas in popular culture. The emergence of this new concept of Father Christmas (based on Santa Claus) doesn't change the fact that the original concept is separate and continues to play a major role in defining the subject. This would be true even if said use of the term "Father Christmas" were entirely obsolete (which it isn't); a subject's history is an essential element of what it is. —David Levy 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- You suggested: "...but you seem to [incorrectly] believe that this is the only modern relevance of the term 'Father Christmas'." No, I am only arguing that its the only relevant one that we can cite reliably and notably thus far, David. I would ask that you provide suitable citation that the concept of Father Christmas continues to evolve and develop beyond the point where that of Santa Claus came into play. Additionally, you have said that Father Christmas continues to play a "major role in defining the subject"; okay, might I trouble you to prove that? As part of the same entity - in a way that most of the other regional versions of a Christmas giver (or Spirit of Christmas, or whatever) do not - Father Christmas stopped evolving as a concept, and that it was replaced, for the most part, by that of Santa Claus. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would ask that you provide suitable citation that the concept of Father Christmas continues to evolve and develop beyond the point where that of Santa Claus came into play.
- I've made no such claim, so that's a peculiar request (particularly given the fact that you accused someone else of perpetrating a straw man argument).
- Additionally, you have said that Father Christmas continues to play a "major role in defining the subject"
- No, that isn't what I wrote. Unlike you, I don't regard Father Christmas and Santa Claus as a single subject. I said that "the original concept" [of Father Christmas] "continues to play a major role in defining the subject" [of Father Christmas]. I then went on to explain that this is because "a subject's history is an essential element of what it is." In other words, the fact that the term "Father Christmas" commonly refers to a Santa Claus-like figure now doesn't cause the previously distinct concept of Father Christmas to be subsumed it its entirety by that of Santa Claus. Is there significant overlap? Absolutely. But are the two subjects one and the same? No, because their respective histories (which are very different from one another) are key components. —David Levy 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey now, I just misunderstood you, David - there's no reason to assume bad faith; certainly, no straw man was intended. When I accuse someone of a straw man argument, its because they have done so, and it would be stupid not to point it out as it saves everyone a lot of time,
- Anyway, thanks for clarifying what you meant. Hmm, "the original concept" [of Father Christmas] "continues to play a major role in defining the subject [of Father Christmas]". Would you happen to have a citation for that observation? I mean, whilst I agree with your contention that "a subject's history is an essential element of what it is", the problem before us is that both Santa and Father Christmas have a shared history, and only diverge in that the latter essentially stopped developing after Santa Claus subsumed the historical predecessor. Now, before you ask me for a citation, understand that the mere fact that stories about Father Christmas - absent any reference to Santa - are fairly old. The "overlap" you refer to is actually subsumation, instead. Those areas of Father Christmas purview are now within that of Santa Claus. This is why the names have become interchangeable. This is why they have become synonymous with one another, with minor differences.
- And the 500-pound gorilla in the room is that all of this, from soup to nuts, is material that can be added to a single article that notes these differences as well as the overlap. Maintaining two articles that basically say the exact, same thing is regional/cultural arrogance and ownership. Note that I am not claiming that you are doing that, David. It just seems like we are splitting hairs when the hairs all belong on the same head. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey now, I just misunderstood you, David - there's no reason to assume bad faith; certainly, no straw man was intended.
- I didn't assume bad faith. I pointed out flawed comprehension on the part of someone who has continually scrutinized and sought to micromanage others' posts, coming across as arrogant and condescending in the process (though I assume that this isn't your intention). This is why I was reluctant to enter the discussion, and it wouldn't surprise me if others have steered clear or been driven away for the same reason.
- When I accuse someone of a straw man argument, its because they have done so, and it would be stupid not to point it out as it saves everyone a lot of time,
- Okay, this is the sort of comment to which I'm referring. I noted your earlier remark because I strongly disagree with your assessment of OtterSmith's message, and the possibility that you might have misjudged his/her intentions doesn't even seem to have entered your mind. You're literally saying, "when I claim something, it's because I'm right."
- Hmm, "the original concept" [of Father Christmas] "continues to play a major role in defining the subject [of Father Christmas]". Would you happen to have a citation for that observation?
- You want a citation to back the assertion that a subject is partially defined by its past (and not merely by its present)?
- I mean, whilst I agree with your contention that "a subject's history is an essential element of what it is", the problem before us is that both Santa and Father Christmas have a shared history, and only diverge in that the latter essentially stopped developing after Santa Claus subsumed the historical predecessor.
- At which point all prior history of Father Christmas ceased to be relevant [enough to warrant a dedicated article]?
- Suppose that Father Christmas had remained distinct from Santa Claus in popular culture. Would you still advocate a merger?
- The "overlap" you refer to is actually subsumation, instead.
- No, I'm referring to the overlap of two distinct histories. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting perceptions that extend beyond the present.
- And the 500-pound gorilla in the room is that all of this, from soup to nuts, is material that can be added to a single article that notes these differences as well as the overlap.
- Variations of the former idiom refer to "an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed." I (and others) have explained why I/we oppose such a plan, and I take offense to your continual assumption that your opinion is obviously correct (and the rest of us are blind to that). Another example is your previous statement that "the ony [sic] real question we really need to address is where to merge to." Are you aware of how rude and dismissive such comments come across?
- Maintaining two articles that basically say the exact, same thing is regional/cultural arrogance and ownership.
- I agree with that statement and disagree that it describes this situation.
- Note that I am not claiming that you are doing that, David. It just seems like we are splitting hairs when the hairs all belong on the same head.
- Others disagree, and you seem inclined to overrule our opinions. —David Levy 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to point out that I would prefer that you focus on the edits and not the editor, David. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; I would prefer if you would attempt to confine that disagreement to exclude your ascribing motives or personality flaws of me from your posts. Stick to the talking points, so to speak. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; you are not allowed to attack me personally. Maybe you could knock that off, please.
- I was asked to bring citations to support the position that the two mythical characters were used interchangeably, and that they were considered synonymous because of that interchangeability. I did so. However, when I in turn asked for others to provide citations to defend a different opinion, I was accused of arrogance, condescension and micromanagement? Yeah, that's fair, civil and professional.
- "(When I accuse someone of a straw man argument, its because they have done so, and it would be stupid not to point it out as it saves everyone a lot of time.)
- Okay, this is the sort of comment to which I'm referring. I noted your earlier remark because I strongly disagree with your assessment of OtterSmith's message, and the possibility that you might have misjudged his/her intentions doesn't even seem to have entered your mind. You're literally saying, "when I claim something, it's because I'm right.""
- No, when I accuse someone of something pretty negative, I'm not going to state such at the drop of a hat; I am going to be fairly sure that I am right before I do so, since ascribing unpleasant motives - even if accurate - usually leads to further unpleasantness.
- (Hmm, "the original concept" [of Father Christmas] "continues to play a major role in defining the subject [of Father Christmas]". Would you happen to have a citation for that observation?) You want a citation to back the assertion that a subject is partially defined by its past (and not merely by its present)?
- I thought that was clear, David: I wanted a citation stating that the original concept continues to play a major role in defining the subject of Father Christmas. Clearly, I am not asking for a citation as to a philosophical term that is well-known enough; its application to Father Christmas and the "continuing" part as it infers a present development of the differing idea of Father Christmas - needs to be supported.
- (I mean, whilst I agree with your contention that "a subject's history is an essential element of what it is", the problem before us is that both Santa and Father Christmas have a shared history, and only diverge in that the latter essentially stopped developing after Santa Claus subsumed the historical predecessor.) At which point all prior history of Father Christmas ceased to be relevant [enough to warrant a dedicated article]? Suppose that Father Christmas had remained distinct from Santa Claus in popular culture. Would you still advocate a merger?
- As I said before at least twice, I have never suggested that the history of Father Christmas wasn't relevant, David. Notability is a constant. What I said was that the developing history of Father Christmas has been replaced by the continuing development of Santa Claus. Two very different concepts. That the two most notable gift-givers in western culture - Santa and Father Christmas - share almost all of the same characteristics and history, and that they are citably considered the same by most folk (btw, the podium and lectern argument assumes a stupidity of people that I find inaccurate) doesn't eliminate the uniqueness of either one. The core argument here is whether they are synonymous and interchangeable enough to warrant a single article that notes such via history and popular interpretation sections. Were the two utterly different, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
- (The "overlap" you refer to is actually subsumation, instead.) No, I'm referring to the overlap of two distinct histories. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting perceptions that extend beyond the present.
- My "great deal of difficulty" aside, we clearly differ in how the two are related. You consider them two distinct histories with overlap. I see them as successive histories, wherein the predecessor stopped developing after the successor gained in popularity and prominence, and was in fact largely subsumed.
- (And the 500-pound gorilla in the room is that all of this, from soup to nuts, is material that can be added to a single article that notes these differences as well as the overlap.) I (and others) have explained why I/we oppose such a plan, and I take offense to your continual assumption that your opinion is obviously correct (and the rest of us are blind to that). Another example is your previous statement that "the ony [sic] real question we really need to address is where to merge to." Are you aware of how rude and dismissive such comments come across?
- I take offense at the fact that while others demand that I support my argument for merge, no one seems able to render a single citation defending the two largely identical articles remaining unmerged. Citations carry far more weight than 'I don't like it' arguments, or uncited arguments; you've been here long enough to know that, David. If I may, I submit that a significant portion of the resistance to a merge is based out of the personal feelings that editors are having, incorporating their childhood memories of either Santa or Father Christmas into the discussion, as noted above by at least two different editors. I have provided the requested citations indicating a merge is appropriate. No one has presented citable evidence to the contrary. If I attempt to sidestep a non-citational argument - which is about as constructive an argument as an argument about which ice cream flavor is best - it isn't rude. It's an attempt to refocus the argument back on the core issue, and what citational evidence exists for one course or another. That isn't my opinion, David - its actually how discussions about articles are supposed to be constructed. I am not dismissing others' arguments; I am pointing out flaws in them, nothing more.
- (Maintaining two articles that basically say the exact, same thing is regional/cultural arrogance and ownership.) I agree with that statement and disagree that it describes this situation.
- We disagree on this point, David. Rather than negatively interpret my motives, perhaps your efforts would be better suited to actually addressing how to resolve that particular disagreement. Adding your own personal asides about my posts is simply drama. And yes, I do choose to be dismissive about that.
- (It just seems like we are splitting hairs when the hairs all belong on the same head.) Others disagree, and you seem inclined to overrule our opinions.
- In a discussion citations win out over feelings, David. No one is "overruling" your opinion. I am just asking you to defend it in the same way I was asked to defend mine.
- If I somehow failed to keep the discussion on track via didactic tangents, please accept my apologies; it is within my nature to want others to understand and accept my point of view. If anyone was offended by my defense of my position, understand that it was neither my intention nor desire to hurt your feelings. I do think I am right in this instance; what other reason would compel me to answer any question posed specifically to me? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to point out that I would prefer that you focus on the edits and not the editor, David.
- I am going to point out that you've already done so on my talk page. As you've now reiterated points to which I've already responded in that forum, I've copied and pasted the entire thread below.
- You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; I would prefer if you would attempt to confine that disagreement to exclude your ascribing motives or personality flaws of me from your posts.
- As I explained on my talk page, I explicitly referred to how your comments came across, not to your "personality." And I've said nothing about your "motives" aside clarifying that I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith and expressing my assumptions that you're a lovely person in real life and didn't intend for your comments to come across in a negative light.
- You, conversely, stated that I acted in bad faith my criticising your comments, which is a claim that I possess a dishonest or malicious motive (but you've
twice thrice [as of 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)] ignored my request to explain what you believe said motive to be).
- Stick to the talking points, so to speak.
- No, I will not allow you to dictate the course of the conversation. If/when I believe that your comments are unfair, I shall say so. This does not constitute a "personal attack."
- I was asked to bring citations to support the position that the two mythical characters were used interchangeably, and that they were considered synonymous because of that interchangeability. I did so. However, when I in turn asked for others to provide citations to defend a different opinion,
- I don't dispute the fact that the terms "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" commonly refer to essentially the same figure nowadays. Why do you demand that I provide citations to defend a position that I've plainly stated I don't hold?
- What I dispute is your assertion that this fact renders "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" a single subject. I dispute this on the basis of my view that the historical usage of the term "Father Christmas" is one of the major elements defining the subject of "Father Christmas" (hence this subsection's title) and thereby warranting a separate article. You needn't agree with that conclusion, but please stop treating your contrary conclusion as the only logical one and asking me to defend a stance that I'm not taking.
- I was accused of arrogance, condescension and micromanagement? Yeah, that's fair, civil and professional.
- As I've already explained to you, I stated that your comments made you come across as arrogant and condescending (and that I assumed that this wasn't your intention). I do believe that some of your demands amount to attempted micromanagement, yes. That's a criticism of your behavior, not a personal attack.
- No, when I accuse someone of something pretty negative, I'm not going to state such at the drop of a hat; I am going to be fairly sure that I am right before I do so, since ascribing unpleasant motives - even if accurate - usually leads to further unpleasantness.
- And yet, you refuse explain what "unpleasant motives" I harbor that led me (according to you) to act in bad faith.
- And again, I don't believe that you were even close to "right" when you accused OtterSmith of perpetrating a straw man argument.
- I thought that was clear, David: I wanted a citation stating that the original concept continues to play a major role in defining the subject of Father Christmas.
- You stated that you "agree with [my] contention that a subject's history is an essential element of what it is," so I don't understand what is in dispute here.
- Clearly, I am not asking for a citation as to a philosophical term that is well-known enough; its application to Father Christmas and the "continuing" part as it infers a present development of the differing idea of Father Christmas - needs to be supported.
- I've made no claim regarding "a present development," so I'm afraid that the inference is entirely yours. My point is merely that the past usage plays an important role in the overall subject (again, hence this subsection's title).
- As I said before at least twice, I have never suggested that the history of Father Christmas wasn't relevant, David. Notability is a constant.
- Precisely. And my argument is that the differing histories of "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" render them independently notable and worthy of separate articles. The key dispute appears to stem from your belief that modern usage alone determines whether two terms refer to the same subject and my belief that it doesn't (again, hence this subsection's title).
- What I said was that the developing history of Father Christmas has been replaced by the continuing development of Santa Claus.
- And what I'm saying is that the former's historical existence renders "Father Christmas" a separate subject.
- That the two most notable gift-givers in western culture - Santa and Father Christmas
- ...except for the fact that Father Christmas was not originally portrayed as a gift-giver. The figure possessed a different persona not associated with Santa Claus, and this remains a major element of the subject of "Father Christmas."
- share almost all of the same characteristics and history,
- The traditional portrayal of Father Christmas was largely dissimilar from that of Santa Claus until the latter's characteristics were applied to the former, so I disagree with this claim.
- and that they are citably considered the same by most folk
- Nowadays, they are. My point is that the modern usage alone does not define the subject in its entirety (again, hence this subsection's title).
- (btw, the podium and lectern argument assumes a stupidity of people that I find inaccurate)
- You deny that it's common for people to refer to a lectern as a "podium"? In my experience, the former has become the object's prevalent label (at least in the United States). I don't believe that this reflects "stupidity," just as I don't believe that you're stupid for using the word "merge" as a noun (in lieu of "merger") or the word "infer" to mean "imply." The English language is inconsistent and evolving, and my point was that the emergence of a new usage of a term (even a prevalent one) doesn't automatically render the existing usage obsolete.
- doesn't eliminate the uniqueness of either one. The core argument here is whether they are synonymous and interchangeable enough to warrant a single article that notes such via history and popular interpretation sections.
- The core argument, as I perceive it, is whether or not the modern equivalence of "Father Christmas" and "Santa Claus" (ignoring their past disparity) is the sole factor in determining whether they constitute one or two subjects.
- Were the two utterly different, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
- They were utterly different, and now they aren't (in popular culture). I just don't believe that the latter fact outweighs the former.
- My "great deal of difficulty" aside, we clearly differ in how the two are related. You consider them two distinct histories with overlap. I see them as successive histories, wherein the predecessor stopped developing after the successor gained in popularity and prominence, and was in fact largely subsumed.
- The two entities co-existed. I agree that their histories have largely converged, but Santa Claus didn't come into existence as a replacement for Father Christmas.
- If I may, I submit that a significant portion of the resistance to a merge is based out of the personal feelings that editors are having, incorporating their childhood memories of either Santa or Father Christmas into the discussion, as noted above by at least two different editors.
- I can't speak for those editors, but I'm Jewish and had no childhood traditions involving any Christmas figure.
- I have provided the requested citations indicating a merge is appropriate.
- You've provided citations that you believe lead to such a conclusion. I disagree, and I've explained why.
- No one has presented citable evidence to the contrary.
- Do you dispute the assertion that the traditional portrayal of Father Christmas originally different substantially from that of Santa Claus? If not, I don't know what sort of citation you want from me (as my opposition to the proposed merger is based on the opinion that this renders them two separate subjects).
- I am not dismissing others' arguments; I am pointing out flaws in them, nothing more.
- Stating that your opinion is an obvious truth that others choose to ignore and that "the ony [sic] real question we really need to address is where to merge to" seems pretty darn dismissive to me.
- We disagree on this point, David. Rather than negatively interpret my motives, perhaps your efforts would be better suited to actually addressing how to resolve that particular disagreement.
- Again, I have not negatively interpreted your motives. You negatively interpreted mine (when you accused me of acting in bad faith), and you've refused to explain why.
- Adding your own personal asides about my posts is simply drama.
- And what do your personal asides about my posts constitute?
- And yes, I do choose to be dismissive about that.
- Indeed, you do. It's unfortunate that you're unwilling to accept my constructive criticism.
- In a discussion citations win out over feelings, David. No one is "overruling" your opinion.
- How do you characterize the claim that a hypothetical scenario based exclusively on your position is "the ony [sic] real question we really need to address"?
- I am just asking you to defend it in the same way I was asked to defend mine.
- You're continually asking me to defend positions that I don't hold. —David Levy 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Sorry, but having you import entire tracts of conversation and asking me defend minor points that you took offense to is somewhat outside the scope of the article discussion. I am not going to waste an equal amount of time restating my position. Clearly you take exception to whatever I say. Fine. I had asked you to supply citations to counter your statements which defend your position - and yes, you most certainly have made statements contradicting cited information, and haven't once supplied a counterpoint citation - maybe you misapprehended the meaning of being asked to defend your position with citations. With all the regurgitated text, who can tell?
- So long as you aren't willing to present countering citations, your arguments - with all the added bad faith will not be responded to. If you choose to bring more citations and less snarkyness, you might find me to be more welcoming. Until then, I am not playing a game of font color and text regurgitation. If you wish to continue the conversation on usertalk pages only, I might be interested in that, depending on how mich time I have spend responding to the excruciating minutiae. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Again, you've repeatedly asked me to supply citations to corroborate claims that I have not made. As far as I can tell, you and I have absolutely no disagreement within the realm of material facts pertaining to this article, so there is nothing factual for me to counter. The issue, as stated above, is how to apply the facts to the situation, and that is a matter of opinion. But whenever I express mine, you demand that I cite evidence supporting claims that I haven't made.
- 2. Once again, you've accused me of engaging in "bad faith" (something that I haven't once accused you of). And once again, I ask that you explain what dishonest or malicious motive you believe I've acted upon. This isn't a "minor point"; it's one of the most serious accusations that one editor could lodge against another. (and something that warrants elaboration or retraction). —David Levy 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Allow me to clarify: when I offered the merge as a proposal, someone asked for citations in support of the common usage of the two. I supplied them. No one offered evidence - aside from their personal feelings - to counter the merge proposal. How does one fight personal feelings? At least in Wikipedia, we don't. One sidesteps them and asks again for counterpoints that fit within the framework of our core policies and guidelines. Usually, that amounts to citation.
- 2. You say you don't have the foggiest idea where I arrived at the possibility that you were making some bad faith and attack-y comments. Your posts were initially polite and professional, but when I didn't agree with you, your post turned aggressive. Since you were unwilling or unable to see their effect, allow me to point a few out to you:
- "I pointed out flawed comprehension on the part of someone who has continually scrutinized and sought to micromanage others' posts, coming across as arrogant and condescending in the process""
- "You seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting perceptions that extend beyond the present."
- "Are you aware of how rude and dismissive such comments come across?"
- "I will not allow you to dictate the course of the conversation"
- "you seem inclined to overrule our opinions"
- ...and I don't need to tell you how disruptive it is to port over talk page content relating to interpersonal behavior between editors, and not the article. Attempting to poison the well - as your action could very easily be interpreted as attempting to do - was kind of a cheap shot and bordered on disruptive. Frankly, its shit like that that render the other points you might have been addressed either superfluous or simply invisible, mired as they are in all the personal bs. Casting negative associations on the posts of another editor is unfriendly and antagonistic. Nine times out of ten, its the cause of edit-wars and other counter-productive crap. That is what made me want to disengage from you, as it distracts from the matter at hand. I don't mind discussing the matter with you, but I am not going to respond to having every nuance of my posts treated as if I had just offered a racial epithet. If you choose to find flaws with my logic, then do so. Address my logic, and leave off the baggage of nuancing my motives. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1. What are you asking me to counter with citations (apart from claims that I haven't made)? I've expressed agreement with all of the material facts that you've cited. The disagreement lies in how to act upon them.
- 2. I see a list of criticisms. I don't see any personal attacks, though I understand how the first item might come across that way with the following text ("though I assume that this isn't your intention") omitted for some reason.
- I certainly don't know why you believe that it's okay for you to tell me that my comments seem rude, but it's not okay for me to tell you that your comments seem rude.
- 3. Again, you transferred the interpersonal issue here by re-raising it in a manner that created the false appearance that you were doing so for the first time (when in fact, I already had addressed the same points on my talk page). Let me be perfectly clear in stating that I am not accusing you of intentionally misleading anyone, but my sole reason for copying and pasting the text was to set the record straight. I'm flabbergasted by your continual assertion (and resultant outrage) that I introduced the topic here. I would have gladly left it on my talk page, had you allowed that. But instead, you posted the following here:
- I am going to point out that I would prefer that you focus on the edits and not the editor, David. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; I would prefer if you would attempt to confine that disagreement to exclude your ascribing motives or personality flaws of me from your posts. Stick to the talking points, so to speak. You are allowed to disagree with my position, David; you are not allowed to attack me personally. Maybe you could knock that off, please.
- I was asked to bring citations to support the position that the two mythical characters were used interchangeably, and that they were considered synonymous because of that interchangeability. I did so. However, when I in turn asked for others to provide citations to defend a different opinion, I was accused of arrogance, condescension and micromanagement? Yeah, that's fair, civil and professional.
- Please explain how that substantially differs from the message that you posted on my talk page (and that I'd already addressed).
- 4.Again, I have not commented on your motives, other than expressing the assumption that you're acting in good faith. You, conversely, have repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith (and I'm still waiting for you to cite the dishonest or malicious motive to which you attribute the alleged misconduct). —David Levy 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Look, we could go back and forth until next Christmas and you could spin my text until it sounds like I said up is down, night is day and Reagan was good for America. It's tedious, it doesn't belong here in the article discussion, and really, a "win" isn't going to solve the problem. So, let's just sidestep all the who's got a bigger dick' theatrics and refocus our attention of the sticking points, okey-doke?
- You said that while you agree with the information supported by the citations, you disagree with me about how to act upon them. Good, let's address that, without drama and with the level of respect we both (all) deserve to receive. If I disagree with you, it doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person or your mama dresses you funny; it just means we disagree. Let's just keep it polite and specific to the arguments, okay?
- I've touched on the personality stuff in your user-talk space, David. I say this so that the other editors here know it is ongoing there, but doesn't belong here. No one came to the article for drama (neither one of us brought enough popcorn to share with the rest of the class ;) ). So, let's let the interpersonal friction go and try it again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to drop the interpersonal conflict from this page, please actually do so. Saying that you wish to do so—but simultaneously slipping in a dig about how I "spin [your] text"—does not help to accomplish this. It forces me to either dispute the assertion that I've spun your text (thereby continuing the conflict) or ignore it (thereby allowing the assertion to stand).
- Thus far, you have neither retracted your numerous claims of "bad faith" conduct on my part nor cited the dishonest or malicious motive to which you attribute it. Until such point as that very serious accusation is addressed, I cannot regard the conflict as resolved. You have (and always have had) my assumption of good faith, and I need yours. —David Levy 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I haven't retracted my observation of the attacky nature of your posts (and I haven't the foggiest idea where you arrived at the assumption that I called you dishonest or malicious). I have the option of addressing negative connotations, or allowing them to stand. The essential criteria for responding should be - does my continuing this process allow for the possible outcome of the other person changing their mind or refactoring/redacting the posts in question? Clearly, you don't feel you did anything wrong whatsoever, which is what inclined me to disengage talking to you about what is essentially personality friction - and of no use in article discussion. I am sorry you cannot regard the conflict as resolved; I don't, either. Whatever resolution is to be found will have to be sought in usertalk pages, and not here. If that is an unacceptable solution to you, you will find me largely unsympathetic. You may also assume that any further attempt engagement of this topic on this page will go unanswered by myself. Drama time is now over. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I haven't retracted my observation of the attacky nature of your posts
- "Attacky nature" ≠ "bad faith." I'm requesting that you either substantiate or retract your repeated claims that I've acted in "bad faith." That you perceived my posts as "attacky" is not in question.
- (and I haven't the foggiest idea where you arrived at the assumption that I called you dishonest or malicious)
- I've repeatedly explained that "bad faith" refers to a dishonest or malicious motive. That's what the term means. If it isn't what you meant, you've been misusing the term. If that's the case, please just say so.
- I have the option of addressing negative connotations, or allowing them to stand.
- Right, and I'm not imposing on you to address anything other than a particular, serious accusation that you have publicly lodged against me (whether intentionally or not) and that currently stands. Declaring an end to "drama time" does not eliminate this barrier to constructive discourse. (Simply put, I cannot work with someone who maintains that I'm acting in bad faith.) —David Levy 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly, your interpretation of bad faith is not the same that I - or most other people use. Maybe don't use the article on bad faith (which is largely uncited and OR) or a hyper-sensitive definition of such and instead focus on the broader assessment of such of WP:AGF. Either way, your personal affront doesn't belong here in article discussion, and I think someone of your experience is well aware of that. As I am engaged in good faith discussions with you on your talk page, I will have to ask you to cease the discussion on this front. As for the retraction, you've received all the substantiation you need, and a retraction will not be forthcoming. If you wish to continue this matter on your talk page, then do so. We are done talking about it here. Or, at least I am. You may continue to talk - and be ignored - at your pleasure. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly, your interpretation of bad faith is not the same that I - or most other people use.
- What interpretation is that?
- Maybe don't use the article on bad faith (which is largely uncited and OR) or a hyper-sensitive definition of such
- You don't like our article? Okay, how about LectLaw's explanation? Would you care to cite a reputable source to corroborate your assertion that "most other people use" a different definition?
- and instead focus on the broader assessment of such of WP:AGF
- WP:AGF is the guideline about assuming good faith on the part of fellow editors, meaning assuming that they are acting without dishonest or malicious motives. What did you interpret it to mean?
- Either way, your personal affront doesn't belong here in article discussion, and I think someone of your experience is well aware of that. As I am engaged in good faith discussions with you on your talk page, I will have to ask you to cease the discussion on this front.
- You've repeatedly accused me of acting in bad faith on both pages, and now you're insisting that I respond on only one.
- As for the retraction, you've received all the substantiation you need,
- Are you referring to your claim that a common term means something other than what seemingly everything says it means, with no explanation of what it really means or documentation of such use?
- and a retraction will not be forthcoming.
- How unfortunate.
- If you wish to continue this matter on your talk page, then do so.
- I've consistently replied in both venues.
- We are done talking about it here. Or, at least I am. You may continue to talk - and be ignored - at your pleasure.
- So be it, I guess. —David Levy 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Focus on the edits, not the editor
[GFDL-licensed text copied from User talk:David Levy by User:David Levy and removed without consent by User:Arcayne. Available in its entirety here.]
Merge proposal: reboot
To restate the issue: I think that Father Christmas and Santa Claus should be merged because they are citably connected, historically related and interchangeably used as synonyms for one another. This renders them as more or less duplicates of one another. Furthermore, there is significant overlap (I feel the level of overlap is to the point of subsumation) between the two articles.
There is little possibility of developing either of these articles so that the overlap does not occur. As two of the four criteria for WP:MERGE have been met (and, to a lesser extent, the other two criteria as well), I submit that arguments to the contrary need to address these points specifically, and be defended with citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's see:
1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
The claim that you make that they are now synonyms means that they were, in the past, not "exactly the same subject and having the same scope", and the articles need not be so now.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
The correct overlap is that editors have been finding confusing sources and mixing the two. That there are mistakes made, even reliable ones, does not mean that other reliable and correct information should be discarded.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
Neither page is short, and if the information about Santa was removed from Father Christmas, Father Christmas would not be short.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.
Father Christmas and Santa Claus come from different contexts, and neither is a minor character.
As far as your misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what I've said, I perhaps assume too much good faith. If so, it's a minor fault. htom (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- To begin, if I have misunderstood or misapprehended your words, I apologize; I would ask you - as per this idea of 'reboot' - to explain them again. I certainly don't want to misinterpret your position and defenses. Now, on to your responses:
- As per Duplicates, no, I am suggesting that the two articles do in fact cover the same character, and are largely reflective of the same history and content. They aren't two accidental folk with beards who just so happen to wander through the snow.
- As per Overlap, the characters have significant overlap independent of any' source brought by any editor, and everyone here has admitted as such. Perhaps if you find the sources "confusing", maybe address what you found confusing about them.
- Re txt of the Father Christmas article is a bit short, and the article would be shorter still if any reference to Santa - which would be OR somewhat - were removed.
- Re context, can you explain what you mean when you say the FC and SC come from different context? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see I missed quite a bit during my weekend off. Welcome to the discussion, David. Arcayne, I think we all know that, in the modern world, Santa Claus and Father Christmas are often used interchangeably. They are not *always* used in that manner. You said once, way up yonder, that most people use both "Santa Claus" and "Father Christmas" to refer to one entity; I would argue that most individuals actively *use* one or the other term, not both. In my Christmas activities, I *never* think of him as "Father Christmas", he's always Santa Claus.
- So what is the benefit of merging? To save space? We have plenty. In my opinion, a merger would confuse and disappoint some people who are looking for their own version. I know I would be upset if I searched for "Santa Claus" and was redirected to Father Christmas. The benefit to multiple articles for Santa Claus, Father Christmas, Pere Noel, etc., is that people would be able to go to a page titled and entirely about *their* holiday gift-giver, not another version. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, let me ask this: Arcayne, is the primary reason you're pushing for a merge, that Santa and Father Christmas are virtually interchangeable *nowadays*? If this is the case, they have only been so in the last 60 or so years. Surely there's a place for articles of historical interest on Wikipedia. For example, there are separate articles on Texas and The Republic of Texas, although The Republic of Texas has largely been subsumed into what we now call Texas (and other states). The fact is that both the Republic of Texas and Father Christmas have important historical significance that merit their own articles, not just sections within other articles. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arcayne, you yourself have WP:NOTPAPER listed as one of your "Rules To Live By." Please give that guideline a read...it specifically says:
- "...because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on. This also means you do not have to redirect one topic to an equivalent topic of more common usage. A 'See also' section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable."
- That would seem to fit this case, no? If no, why not? Applejuicefool (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep you missed out on all the "fun", Applejuicefoot. Consider yourself fortunate. ;)
- As per your argument that most individuals actively use one name or the other, the problem with that statement is that there isn't any citation to suggest that. In fact, all of the citations I provided note the interchangeability of the two. Personally, I don't mix the two, and really have no strong feelings one way or another.
- That said, if we Venn diagram the two, we end up with an overlap that pretty much dwarfs the differences. That this happened since Nast's imagery took off like a rocket (120-140 years ago, and not just the Coca-Cola ad campaigns) is an important detail, but not germane to this discussion. Recentism is not a mitigating factor. That Father Christmas has become largely synonymous with Santa Claus is.
- The benefit to merging is that two imaginary folk who are citably treated as synonymous can be found in the same place. Father Christmas (the concept, not the article) was in place before Santa Claus, so I would suggest making the merge to Father Christmas, with redirects for Santa Claus, etc. I am not convinced that folk are going to burst into tears because the main article is called Father Christmas. Because they are used synonymously, chances are high that they are already aware of the interchangeability. That, and the Lede which notes all the names. As for the versions, I submit that Father Christmas and Santa Claus are the most widely-used names for the holiday gift-giver in the world, and that a merge for Peré Noel or the less commonly used names is unnecesaary. Sinterklaas (arguably) is the etymological root of the name Santa Claus, whereas the latter appears to have developed from (or perhaps alongside, but sources disagree) Father Christmas; all three have St. Nicholas as their common root.
- For these reasons, among others, the history of the development of each successive gift-giver could be combined in a single section (with name specific subsections) illustrating the differences. The current Santa article has a lot of this already, and could be expanded with the concise text contained in the five paragraphs (only eleven sentences with two citations) from Father Christmas. The ease with which these could be accomplished is fairly clear. Getting to the point where folk can see that I am not trying to strangle their childhood seems to be one of the hurdles, I think.
- Lastly, I appreciate you reading my user page, and I hope you found something funny to chuckle at while there. Merging doesn't break the rule of WP:NOT. It says there is some freedom in having different article for related items. It doesn't prohibit the merging of very closely-related items, either. If the reader considers two terms synonymous and interchangeable, then it is within our best interest to have our articles reflect that. Looking at the page stats for the two articles, Santa Claus has been viewed eight times more frequently than Father Christmas has. That reinforces the argument that Santa Claus is not only synonymous with Father Christmas but has largely supplanted the 19th century white-bearded gift-giver as the primary secular Christmas figure.
- I think I've presented enough reasons why a merge would be beneficial. How about explaining why it wouldn't? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- One page getting five or ten times the hits from the other indicates to me that they are not synonyms; if they were, simple random chance would seem to determine which was used, but the numbers do not bear that out. Your links seem to be to primarily current popular sources, while those of us arguing against the merge are pointing to older popular works and academic works. The popular frequently drives out the accurate, to mis-quote someone's law. The Santa stuff should probably be moved to Santa's page, and Father Christmas and the other Lords of Misrule be left to celebrate with the adults. Children don't need to know about Father Christmas, and all of the other Christmas folk of the English speaking world, although a link to his page would be respectful, and the other languaged or countried children should be able to find their own, as well. With links as appropriate. They are, after all, learning machines, and it would be nice to give them a puzzle to follow about. Keeps them out of mischief. htom (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Santa Claus and Father Christmas are obviously not synonyms. I pointed out for, what, 8 of the first 9 articles you linked in your citations above (way above!) that they are NOT used interchangeably or synonymously. Individual people speaking within the article (and by "people" I mean quoted sources, the reporter him/herself, or the headline writer) in ALMOST every case used a single term. It is only by taking the article itself as kind of a conglomerate "speaker" that you can even begin to say the term is being used interchangeably. Yes, in one of the articles (#7?) the terms are used interchangeably. It is not as common as you'd like us to believe.
This guy[1], whom I believe you also cite, says the two started from widely divergent origins and have converged until they are virtually (but not entirely) interchangeable. The same page has a passage from the Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore, which details this historic convergence, but does note that even "nowadays", "His authentic dress is a loose, hooded red gown edged with white...." The ODEF does go on to note that he often wears a Santa-like outfit, but the "authentic" dress is something not associated with Santa. Nowadays or not, the very fact of the divergent origin is plenty reason enough for two articles.
I admit not knowing this guy's[2] credentials, but he did go to the trouble to put up a website. Scroll down to the "Santa Claus Vs Father Christmas" section for some interesting reading, especially: "In certain parts of the British Isles, for example, Father Christmas is often not depicted as the popular Coca-Cola Santa Claus of today, but as a thinner, long cloaked and hooded old man more in keeping with the old tradition."
The BBC [3] supports this contention.
As you can see, there is support in the modern world for the difference between the two figures, and even if there wasn't, the HISTORICAL differences are plenty for the articles to remain separate if an effort is made to differentiate them more. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- After having read through all the information I decided that I would like to add to the discussion. I was attempting to stay in the middle but looking at the arguments laid out I have changed my opinion on whether they should/shouldn't be merged. I myself use both terms to mean the same person as I stated way up above. However I do not agree with a merge. I don't believe using both terms to mean the same person warrants a merge. If both fugures have different histories they should be kept separate, even if the histories were the same but from different sources they should remain separate, who are we to say that one regions view should be more highly regarded than anothers. I would prefer to see a separate page for every version of Father Christmas/Santa/Whatever that there is in order to learn about a particular country/regions views on him/her. Arcayne, you are asking for people to cite references to prove that Santa and FC are not terms used for the same person, however I don't think anyone is disputing this fact therefore no references are needed. Everyone is disputing that this should not be a reason to merge. If the histories differ they should stay separate regardless of whether two the terms can now mean the same person. Dark verdant (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Dark Verdant. I personally don't think the history argument is sufficient to warrant different articles on what seems clearly an evolution of a single character. If some folk in certain parts of the British Isles think they are separate, then by all means, let's go with what that oddwater, small group wants to think. My suggestion for a merge was not that one or another character was "more highly regarded" than another - it was that they were regarded (by the majority of folk) to be interchangeable. The above citations in support of that could be supplemented by dozens, if not hundreds, more. However, DV suggests that they are used interchangeably is not in dispute, and that the sole question is whether this commonality is sufficient for a merge. No one - and especially not I - is arguing that different articles should exist for the lesser-known versions of the Christmas gift-giver. I just think that the two most commonly-known ones (who do in fact share a common history if not appearance, tubbyness aside) who are already lumped together should be done so in an article. And again, I will point out that verifiability, not truth (confused by another editor with accuracy, above) is what we do here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Emphasis added, citation needed. "Oddwater"? Minnesota would object to being considered part of the British Isles, too. htom (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Emphasis removed - please do not place refactor my posts to suggest an emphasis I neither intended nor wanted. I utterly despise posts that are bolded (read: shouted) in a polite discussion. It's quintessentially boorish. And who was talking about Minnesota? Actually, don't answer that, as I tend to dislike tangential conversations wedged into a discussion thread. You want to talk about it, open a new thread or ask me about it on my usertalk page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll quote it.
If some folk in certain parts of the British Isles think they are separate, then by all means, let's go with what that oddwater, small group wants to think.
Citation needed. "Oddwater"? htom (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you need a citation for oddwater? Do you think I am talking about you, OtterSmith/htom/whatever? I am using the term as it appears clear that the (again, uncited) reference to the usage in certain parts of the British Isles is likely a minor group of folk - 'ere you'd have said the majority of the British Isles.
- You seemed, to me, to be addressing all of us who were opposed to your merger. Do you know a different meaning for "oddwater" other than "urine"? htom (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've spent the better part of four minutes laughing at this oddest of (yet again uncited) definitions. Unequivocally, I was referring neither to your arguments in opposition to the merge, nor to you (or others) or anyone involved in urine-play. It was meant as a loose conflation of the ideas of an idiosyncratic, or odd point of view blended with a backwater locale. Perhaps you could attmept to be a tad less defensive, okey-doke? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fall of 1966, men's dorms at Michigan State University; some medical experiment needed thousands of gallons of male human urine, which was collected in 25 gallon carboys placed in the men's restrooms. "Oddwater" was one of the terms used by the residents for the contents of the "piss pots" and "urine urns". Not greywater, blackwater, or whitewater, but #1 water, hence oddwater (perhaps with a flavor of "Odd Job", the Goldfinger henchman.)
- It is not usually conducive to a discussion to tell people to stop being defensive.
- You were talking about us, from all appearances, as we were the ones in the conversation. If you go about handing out random insults, don't be surprised if some object to being hit.
- I've assumed a lot of good faith. You used a term offensive to me, and I called you on it. You corrected other errors, but not that. You may well not have known the usage I objected to, but couldn't be bothered to elaborate on your invention until you were called on it. Sorry, there's prior art. htom (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, you take offense using as your defense a 47 year-old obscure reference to more obscure Land-of-the-Hand study? Really? Come on, that's a stretch even for Dennis Miller. If you are unable to recognize the obscurity of your reference (and source of your defensiveness), then I am not sure what I can say to alleviate what could politely be called a 'wild misinterpretation' and less-politely called paranoiac.
- You and I apparently differ on what's conducive to a conversation. I tend to think it partly consists of not making a fairly unique assumption based upon a presentiment of conflict. Your mileage may vary. I do find it odd that you got offended at a blended word but took no issue with 'feltch monkey'. Oh well.
- Again - and I am not sure why I have to repeat myself to someone who is, by all appearances - a rational human being with more than three brain cells firing: I was not talking about you. You may choose to believe this or not; I refuse to waste time arguing about it in an article/ Maybe focus your attention on the actual subject matter there, okey-doke? No one is out to get you. Clearly, applying an obscure reference and making all an attack on you is something of a bad faith assumption of my intent, my friend. Maybe as well, you could perhaps confine your post to one particular arena (and not three)? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- OtterSmith is from Minnesota. I'm from New Jersey. —David Levy 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- And that matters...why, exactly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because you've attributed our position to "some folk in certain parts of the British Isles." —David Levy 17:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I really haven't. I attribute their position to an isolated (ergo the usage of 'certain' as opposed to 'most') portion of GB that uses the term with regularity. I attribute your (as editors) point of view - assuming good faith - to a personally held belief that I think is unencyclopedic. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- What common history are you talking about, Arcayne? Santa Claus is descended from St. Nicholas, Sinterklass, New York Dutch, and Clement Clark Moore; while Father Christmas sprang uup in the 17th Century as a personification of the traditions and festivities surrounding Christmas itself, in opposition to the Puritan idea that celebrating Christmas was wrong. The only "common history" they have is lately - the past 60-100 years, since the two have begun to merge in pop culture.
- Also, are you saying that different articles for the "lesser known" Christmas gift-givers *should* exist, or *should not*? Because several already do - Sinterklaas, Saint Nicholas, Pere Noel, Christkind, Ded Moroz. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assertion that Father Christmas is not patterned - like Santa Claus - after Saint Nicholas, and various sources tend to support that they are, in fact commonly descended. I would suggest that, at the very least, the fairly anemic Father Christmas article be expanded upon, as it fails to note the connection. And they began merging 120 to 140 years ago, after Nast's illustrations began firing imaginations in the States.
- I am aware that the lesser used (in a world-wide sense of the descriptive) names for the Christmas gift-giver have articles, and that's fine; they address less-known descriptions of those characters and serve as a window into the culture that they continue to be active within. Merging an overwhelmingly well-known term (Santa) with its slowly fading away precursor (Father Christmas) should be considered a possible merge candidate. In defense of that qualifier, the comments above suggest that those distinguishing FC from SC speak of 'used-to-be', and not, 'as it currently is'. I am not suggesting the FC is less important or notable; I am suggesting that the supplanting and sublimation of one by the other should warrant consideration. I know I have seen examples of merges in these sorts of situations, but I don't follow merge discussions enough to pull up specific instances.
- Understand that I will agree with a consensus, but I think that that consensus needs to be based on citable evidence that effectively and instructionally prevents merge discussions from recurring. This discussion of merge keeps occurring and, frankly, many of the opposes in those conversations were of the 'but my childhood says different' variety. I am not dismissing those personal feelings as invalid in the grand scope of things, but I am discounting them for the purposes of merge opposition. I hope I am making that clear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that personal feelings and experiences are not valid sources of citation for Wikipedia articles; I would argue, however, that we, as editors, can and should use them to inform our research into these topics. I *know*, as a former journalist (and I suspect you know this as well) that news writers are usually far more interested in creating an interesting and readable article than in niceties such as the difference between Father Christmas and Santa Claus. Since I know this, I tend to look at your examples above as examples of writers just not wanting to repeat "Santa" "Santa "Santa" or "Father Christmas" "Father Christmas" "Father Christmas" over and over again, and so mixed it up for readability. It is *not* proof of their interchangeability, it is proof that writers don't like to use the same word ad nauseum.
- Obviously I'm not going to be able to find as many or as well-known sources as you, because every mainstream media outlet at some point or another does a story about Santa or Father Christmas, and they usually suffer from just that problem; it's a "puff-piece", and they're more concerned with how the story reads than with accurate facts. Despite that fact, I have found some pieces which extol the differences.
- Beyond all that, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline I'm aware of saying both articles should not exist. You have yet to give me a compelling reason to merge, and the historical peculiarity of Father Christmas as a jolly reaction to dour Puritanism is worthy of it's own article. That wasn't Santa Claus they were talking about. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I respect your argument, Aplejuicefool (and not "foot', as I have been writing), and equally respect your oppose. You arguments have been sensible, well-composed and agreeable. I simply disagree with your assessment at this time, as I don't see a compelling reason not to merge, considering that the majority of folk already consider them merged (the journalists who thesaurically interchange them are getting the impetus to do so from somewhere). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Their modern roles in popular culture have largely merged. Their histories have not. —David Levy 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, just as one part of a person;s history is different than anotehr part of their history, Santa is a developmental offshoot of Father Christmas - just as both are offshoots of St Nick. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Separate (and very different) concepts of Father Christmas and Santa Claus co-existed (chronologically more so than geographically) until the former assumed the latter's characteristics in popular culture. Santa Claus didn't enter existence as an "offshoot of" or replacement for Father Christmas. —David Levy 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there is no reason to merge, and there is no reason NOT to merge, then it seems logical to maintain the status quo, correct? Which is to say, don't merge. And I appreciate your respect. Thank you for arguing logically. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome - same to you. As I noted before, I respect your arguments, and even though I disagree, perhaps the best course is to maintain the status quo. However, if Santa Claus up and eats Father Christmas on satellite tv, all bets are off. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|
