Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

I think that we should make it clearer in the opening section that Santa does not exist.

The top section of this page abuses the dual meaning of "legendary" to claim that Santa Claus exists: https://www.emailsanta.com/Santa-Claus-FAQ/is-santa-real.asp If the word "fictional" is used, it is made clear to younger readers that Santa Claus does not exist. Keep in mind Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED
It was agreed upon on this talk page in the past that the lead section of the article should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist, and I think that this will make it clearer that he does not exist.
Cutekids100 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Mt.FijiBoiz: Could you please discuss your unexplained revert? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't that simple, since Santa Claus is partly based on Saint Nicholas, who was a historical figure, as the body of the article explains. - MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

But this might mislead children, and it was agreed upon in the past that this article is supposed to tell the truth about Santa Claus. Why are you also reverting my edits on other Santa Claus-related pages? Cutekids100 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Félix An, even Wikipedia:Custom signatures need to have a link to your actual username somewhere.

Research shows that most kids figure out that Santa isn't "real" by age 8. Readability tests on the lead to this article suggest that almost no kids will be able to understand it anyway. And, as User:MrOllie says, Santa is technically a Legend, as there is a connection to an actual historical person.

Agreed. "Legendary" is certainly more appropriate than "fictional". Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were going to emphasize the fictional nature of Santa, I probably wouldn't have added {{infobox person}} to the top of the article. {{Infobox character}} might be more appropriate if you want to push the modern story rather than the historical connection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator note: I have upgraded to full-protection, since at least one autoconfirmed account has chosen to join as an edit-war rather than discussion. DMacks (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, could you maybe change "fictional" back to "legendary" since only one user is arguing for "fictional"? Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. I went back just prior to the latest editor joining without discussion, and will happily re-evaluate this discussion here periodically to see if it has petered out. DMacks (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed my name recently from Cutekids100 to Félix An. Félix An (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC) But what is the best way to make sure that children read this in a way that they understand the word "legend" as "a folk tale" rather than "a famous person"? According to the dictionary, both are valid meanings. I think that "fictional" is clearer, as it simply means that Santa is not a living person right now. When I was 8 years old, I read this article thinking that "legendary" meant "famous" rather than "from a folk tale," as that is one valid definition of "legendary." I read this article fine when I was 8 years old, although I used dictionary.com for some words. My literacy skills were actually above average for the time, as I frequently read many other Wikipedia articles when I was 8. However, I kept believing Santa was real until I was 13 or 14 (currently, I am 16), all because of NORAD Tracks Santa's claims, among other things. I don't want any more "smart kids" like me at the time to fall into the same trap, because even then, I knew that the word "legendary" in "Wayne Gretzky was a legendary person" and "Antigone was a legendary person" meant different meanings. If you Google "legendary people," you get lists of famous, REAL historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. I don't kids to put Santa Claus in the same category as those people. Also, the word "legendary" is usually used when the existence of a historical person can be debated. However, there is no question that Santa Claus does not exist. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to say, it already says that the article is in the categories "FICTIONAL Christian saints" and "FICTIONAL toymakers and toy inventors" at the bottom of the page. (I wasn't the one who added the article to those categories. Félix An (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is personal for you. We have no obligation to make this an article for children. Jenny Jankel (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said that changing that word makes it for children. It's also clearer for adults, and it already is categorized as fictional at the bottom of the page. Why not put the same word at the top? Félix An (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

See the arguments above. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You (Redacted) have added false information regarding Santa Claus as a fictional; this is not true, he is officially a legendary figure, it's just Mrs. Claus that is fictional because she was created by the authors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugaantony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a few days due to repeated WP:NPA, but will leave the comment (with the PA elided) because it is on-topic to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)=

Did any of you read the RfC that was once on this talk page? Talk:Santa_Claus/Archive_11#About_Santa_Claus Félix An (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
How about we use both words, since they have a slightly different meaning? Félix An (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You are the only editor arguing to use the word "fictional". "Legendary" is sufficient. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But you are the only one who is actively debating with me as well. Also, did you even read the old RfC that I linked to? Félix An (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of this discussion is clear. People don't have to repeat themselves daily. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say that "legendary" is "sufficient"? The old RfC said, "The final wording should not take into account the minority viewpoint that Santa Claus's mythical nature should be hidden from unaware readers, as this position is not supported by our policies." Since my link to emailsanta.com at the top abuses the dual meanings of "legendary" to try to prove that Santa Claus is real, this shows that "legendary" is not clear enough, as the meaning could be confused with "very famous," as in "Wayne Gretzky was a legendary hockey player." The lead section should immediately cause readers to know that Santa does not exist and not cause them to wonder, "Does he mean legendary as in very famous or as in it's only a fairy tale?" The word "fictional" would be better for accomplishing this. Also Mr. Ollie, please do not try to rudely close my discussion, as I am still trying to express myself clear enough to try to explain why "fictional" would be more suitable a word for the lead section than "legendary." Félix An (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No one closed anything. What are you talking about? - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were trying to abruptly conclude my discussion. I wanted to tell you that I still had more things to say. I didn't mean to be rude. Félix An (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What have you not yet said? Jenny Jankel (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the consensus from the old RfC was that the lead section has to be as clear as possible that Santa does not exist. The word "legendary" is ambiguous. The word "fictional" is not. Félix An (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shall we have another vote? Félix An (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The RFC close explicitly does not take a position on 'legendary' vs 'fictional'. Also, see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I support "fictional", as now stated in the Introduction. I agree that "legendary" is subject to multiple interpretations. A suggested alternative to fictional could be "imaginary". DonFB (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding what I mean, DonFB! Félix An (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Imaginary" is an interesting idea. Clearer and more straightforward than either "fictional" or "legendary", it seems to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! I think we should use "imaginary" then. Félix An (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

An IP just switched it to 'mythical' (and was swiftly reverted by Félix An, despite no real consensus on this talk page). This seems like a good compromise between 'fictional' and 'legendary' to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think "imaginary" is a better alternative to "fictional". What do you all think? Félix An (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as with 'fictional' it is the wrong word because Saint Nicholas of Myra was a historical person. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know St. Nicholas was a real historical person. We learned that in religion class. However, the modern portrayal of Santa Claus with the red suit, ho-ho-ho, and nine reindeer is fictional, and that's what THIS article refers to. There is a separate article regarding the real-life St. Nicholas. Félix An (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the link at the top of the page to mention how St. Nick was the real-life person who Santa Claus was based on. Félix An (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think what it is now is good. Shall we keep it this way? Félix An (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Perhaps a better approach would be to change "This article is about the imaginary character..." to "This article is about Santa Claus..." and thus side-step the issue. An article should be neutral so as to let the reader make up their own mind based upon the information provided.

The key is to let the child figure the mystery out on their own in a supportive environment. For those that read it carefully, this is the approach taken in https://www.emailsanta.com/santa-claus-faq/is-santa-real.asp. Specifically: "What you believe now, you may not believe tomorrow, or you may believe again in the future. The most important thing is that you keep the spirit of Santa in your heart. Just like you keep your love for those who are special to you in your heart. So long as he is in your heart, he will exist in the most important place of all!". It is also the approach in the famous "Yes Virginia" reply Full disclosure: I am the individual behind the emailSanta.com website. I have worked with many professionals, including child psychologists and religious leaders to name a few, in developing the website and the specific response to the question of whether Santa is real.

Two additional points that there is more at issue here than some might realize:

1. Today, more than ever, the ability to discern fact from fiction, whether from political, media or other figures, is critical. The world is sadly now full of "Dezinformatsiya". Figuring out the truth by one's own self & when one is ready to make that step for themselves about Santa is so important for children's development. The need for individuals to be able to think critically for themselves has never been more urgent. Again, solving the mystery behind the (intentionally) fantastical story of Santa is an important step for kids to do on their own. We should be delicately "guiding them" to that decision in this article but letting them make the realization on their own, just as Félix An did back in Dec 2013 when he emailed me 3 times. BTW, we also have to be considerate of older autistic individuals who can be devastated when told flatly about Santa.

2. Santa shares a very special bond with children. They tell him things they would never tell another person, including their parents. Between three to five percent of the emails I receive are from children seeking help from Santa. These run the gamut from "my pet goldfish died" to being sexually or physically abused, dying from cancer or other horrible things I won't mention. emailSanta replies to these children so that they can get the help they need (often referring them to a children's help line listed on the site). In severe cases and where possible, I work with police departments or others to help the children. See https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/calgary-santa-receives-wishes-and-cries-for-help-in-emails-from-around-the-world/. There are many, many more examples of children reaching out to Santa. If we break that bond for children in this article, we are taking away a very important resource for these children dealing with dire circumstances. Because this is part of the "dark side" of being Santa, it is not an argument you will often see. It may however be one of the most important reasons for letting children believe in Santa for as long as they need to believe in him. Kringle Claus (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC) e.g. ref.:

References

Your commentary is obviously in good faith, but your newness to Wikipedia--at least as an editor--shows a certain lack of understanding about how this website operates. To pick one noticeable example, you said: We should be delicately "guiding them" to that decision in this article but letting them make the realization on their own. Wikipedia does not try to "guide" people, including children, to a pre-ordained "decision" or "realization". A fundamental principle of the site is Neutral Point of View. Editors here will have their personal points of view about all manner of subjects, but in writing and editing articles, we leave such personal opinions at the doorstep (or chimney) and confine ourselves, in accordance with site policy, to describing pre-existing information. We do this by using Reliable Sources of previously published material that is Verifiable (the sources actually exist and can be accessed by non-extraordinary means). Other policies are intended to keep the content of articles in proper balance by careful use of Due emphasis, and avoidance of Undue emphasis on aspects of an article's content. The site is also not Censored to protect people's/children's feelings. And we do not engage in Original Research. The site also has a Conflict of Interest policy, which might--or might not--be relevant to you. So, thanks for your observations, and I encourage you to have a look at the rules I've linked, if you have not previously, and feel free to respond to anything I've mentioned. DonFB (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Merry Christmas DonFB and thank you for the kind comments and patience with me. "Guide" was certainly a poor choice of words on my part (it implies something "active") and undercuts my earlier comments about article neutrality and letting children figure out the mystery on their own. I appreciate that Santa can be a sensitive topic (I deal with it regularly ;), which is evident from some previous posts here.

The main point I was getting at was to simply drop the adjective "imaginary" or the other proposed adjectives from the first few lines. The adjective(s) seem to be a bone of contention with a simple, neutral and balanced solution: don't use one (insight from years of writing government Reasons for Decision, sigh)

I'll definitely go over your suggested reading.

Thank you again and Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The choice of adjective has been contentious, but "imaginary" has been stable and garnered consensus for some time now. Full disclosure: it was my suggestion to use "imaginary" instead of "legendary" or "fictional/fictitious" (or "mythical"). It seems to me that omitting any descriptor would, by definition, subtract essential encyclopedic knowledge from the article, and for what reason? Well, I know you've offered a rationale, ("letting children figure out the mystery on their own") but, remember, it is not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules to try to shield children or adults from reliably sourced knowledge about this, or any, topic. DonFB (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Merry Christmas again DonFB!

I'm unsure what you mean by "'imaginary' has been stable and garnered consensus for some time now". After all, the appropriate adjective still seems to be a hot topic for discussion on this page :-).

Perhaps a more accurate and acceptable adjective is "folkloric" . From dictionary.com, words related to folkloric include: whimsical, storied, allegorical, mythic, unreal, fictitious, fabled, legendary, fanciful, imaginary, chimerical, fabulous, fantasy, made-up, nonexistent, pretended, traditional, untrue, visionary, fictive. This list of words seems to cover all of the suggested adjectives I've seen here.

Folklore is also defined as:
• the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.
• a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.
Folkloric also does not have a double meaning like "legendary". As well, I doubt it could be viewed as shielding any one given the definition. It may not be my first choice for the adjective but something I could live with I suppose.

Props to Gugaantony btw for giving me the folkloric idea with his comment about "Santa Claus is a character from folklore..."

On a housekeeping matter, the word "imaginary" is duplicated in the first few lines of the article:
"This article is about the imaginary character. For the real-life fourth-century Christian saint which Santa Claus was based on, see Saint Nicholas. For other uses, see Santa Claus (disambiguation).
Santa Claus, also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, or simply Santa, is an imaginary figure originating in..."

As an aside, I offered two rationales as to the sensitivity of choosing the adjective carefully. The second one was that children in very dire circumstances (sexual, physical abuse, domestic violence etc. etc.) often reach out to Santa for help. I have assisted 12 and 13 year olds, for example.

Stay healthy and safe! Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The definitions of "folklore" tend to refer to it as "unwritten" or "orally" transmitted beliefs, legends, myths, etc. The article can include information about children's relationship to the notional Santa Claus, but their feelings or emotions or needs cannot properly be a controlling aspect of this article's initial description of Santa Claus. On the housekeeping matter, the duplication of "imaginary" does not occur within the beginning of the article itself; the word's appearance in the disambiguating hatnote is not to be construed as any kind of defect or problem. DonFB (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Feliz Navidad DonFB,

I agree that "folklore" refers to an oral history. This is exactly why "folkloric" is so apt a description for Santa Claus. After all, Santa came from the Dutch-American oral history of Sinterklaas (anglicised to Santa Claus).
I also understand and, while I have reservations regarding potential impacts upon children's health & safety, do not wish to debate here whether children's "feelings or emotions or needs cannot properly be a controlling aspect of this article...".
My point is that the adjective "imaginary" is not as concrete (in terms of the seven Cs) as possible. Here are some examples to hopefully illustrate my point:
• A Minotaur is an imaginary creature vs. A Minotaur is a mythical creature.
• An imaginary person, Noah, built the ark vs. A biblical person, Noah, built the ark.
I'm not married to "folkloric"; it is just the most appropriate adjective I can think of to date that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria.
I can also see there being thorny issues regarding using consistent terminology between other articles if "imaginary" is added to the mix.
I've appreciated your comments and patience. Kringle Claus (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just afraid that since there is a potential conflict of interest, as DonFB mentioned, you (Kringle Claus) might be planning to use "folkloric" in a certain way to argue that Santa Claus is real on emailsanta.com. I would be fine with anything here as long as the meaning is not distorted to argue that Santa Claus supposedly exists. It would be somewhat better if there was a disclaimer on emailsanta.com somewhere (probably hidden in the terms in fine print or something), stating that "this website is for entertainment purposes only"; this way it wouldn't matter what language is used, because it is made clear to the user that the content is for entertainment only. (Also somewhat unrelated, but I never gave you permission to share my middle name here on Wikipedia. Your own privacy policy said you wouldn't. [no offence intended] It's too late now, because it's permanently embedded into the edit history of the page.) Félix An (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And wikipedia's terms-of-service also forbid WP:OUTING personal details from sites other than WP itself (Kringle Claus, you can be blocked here for that!). But Félix An, I think you'll find it's not visible in the general history anymore. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks! May you please also remove all traces of my information removal help request from the Help Desk please? Félix An (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The actual detail is totally invisible here or there now, even in history, and I removed the request there altogether (as a simple edit, still in history...no policy for doing anything deeper). Administratively, I think we need to keep at least the warning somewhat visible for future reference regarding Kringle Claus's behavior, so I don't know what other specific content can be removed here, but am open to ideas. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

🎅🏻 Joyeux Noel Felix et al,

Felix, I am very glad that the adjective "folkloric" is acceptable to you. I am hopeful it is acceptable to DonFB as well. I don't believe anyone else has raised concerns about replacing "imaginary" with "folkloric". So, if DonFB signs off, I believe we'll have consensus for the change.

May I suggest we leave a brief pinned explanation in this Talk (or wherever would be most appropriate – I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of Wikipedia) for using the term "folkloric". I can take a first stab at it. The intent isn't to write "folkloric" into stone, but to advance any future conversations without having to rehash the considerable ground we've already covered.

I do apologize for including your middle name Felix. Thank you to DMacks for pointing out the Outing policy. It certainly was not my intent or understanding that I was "outing" Felix, especially as he had already posted his name and age here. Regardless though, my apologies and lesson learned.

A gentle suggestion here for Felix: if you are concerned about your online privacy (which I applaud & support), you may wish to change your moniker on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet (YouTube etc.) from the highly identifiable "Félix An" to something else. You will note that almost no one else in this discussion is using their real name. It is also not a good idea to broadcast one's age in public forums.

Now unfortunately I must address an unpleasant matter. Felix, I object in the strongest possible terms to your extremely serious accusation that I share my site's users' personal information without permission. I go to great lengths to protect my users' information. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not divulge users' personal information to anyone (except to police in very specific circumstances as per the site's privacy policy). Indeed, to my knowledge, you have never used your full middle name on my site or in previous communications with me. However, your middle name was easily available online. I use the past tense here because I noticed that your middle name has been removed from the websites where it once appeared.

Again, I refute in the strongest possible terms that I share my site's users' personal information without permission. Baseless allegations can have extremely serious consequences for all concerned. Felix, you need to be far more careful in your assumptions and accusations online. I request that you remove this portion of your comment immediately.

Felix, as someone mentioned earlier, this is personal for you. However, this is not the place for such discussions. I do hope that you will reach out to me if you wish to discuss any non-editorial matters further. BTW, your concern about "legendary" being ambiguous is well taken.

I look forward to DonFB's and anyone else's thoughts on using "folkloric" to describe Santa.

Merry Christmas! Kringle Claus (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Kringle Claus. Let me first address the main question:

For the record, I do not support the use of the world "folkloric." I'm afraid it could be used in a sentence like this and have its meaning distorted yet again: "Santa is real! Not only is he real, famous folkloric tales talk about him and are passed from generation to generation, so he's GOT to he real!" Using the word "imaginary," it is very hard to bend the meaning, and even young children would mock the doublethink in the sentence: "Santa is real! He can be imaginary and real at the same time!" This way, there is no way the meaning in this article can be distorted to claim that Santa Claus supposedly exists.

On the topic regarding the privacy of my name, please see the reply to my 7-year-old email, sent to head_elf [at] emailsanta [dot] com. There, you will see that I did indeed use my middle name. Since I used it in my correspondence with you, I wasn't particularly happy about my middle name being shared by you. I'm fine sharing it myself, but I feel very embarrassed when other people share it. I am aware I registered a few accounts using this name. The reason for this is because I already have quite some public presence, as I was interviewed on CTV and CBC before. I don't mind posting with my real name or face, because I carefully review what I post, so I present myself in a good light to my future employer, because I know they will scour the Internet to see everything I have ever said. I never share information like my address, phone number, ID numbers, etc., and I keep my friends anonymous, unless I have permission from them. I also have a designated "public" email that I post online for people to contact me with.

Keep in mind that adults and kids alike come to Wikipedia to get quality, uncensored, unbiased information. We should write the article as clear and true as possible. I don't have anything against your website being used for entertainment purposes, but I still want kids to easily learn from the go-to online encyclopedia the truth that Santa Claus does not exist, and it should be written in the most straightforward way possible. Stay safe, Félix An (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't have consensus support for 'imaginary', either. It is just plain wrong because Santa is partly based on a historical figure. Folkloric seems to have better support, and has the bonus of being factually correct, so I switched to that for now. I suppose our other option would be to go back to the longer standing 'legendary' which we had before Felix changed it a few months ago. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "imaginary" is clearer than "folkloric". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, Granger. MrOllie, I would like you to please note the conflict of interest, as DonFB mentioned. Kringle Claus is the owner of emailSanta.com (he disclosed this on the talk page), the website that originally bent the meaning of the ambiguous word "legendary" to make it mean "very famous," as in the context of "the legendary Pierre Trudeau" or "the legendary Steve Jobs," not "the legendary Antigone." It is still there (click the link at the top of this discussion to see it). If we listen to him and use "folkloric," he potentially has a plan in mind already to somehow bend the meaning of "folkloric," probably saying something like, "Santa's real! Look, he was a folkloric figure that so many famous folk tales mentioned, so he's GOT TO BE real!" This way, it would defeat the article's purpose (and WP's purpose in general) of delivering quality, uncensored information to kids and adults alike. Due to the conflict of interest, I will revert back to "imaginary" for now, as I can't see any way the meaning in "imaginary" can be bent to favour the existence of Santa Claus (or at least it would need extreme doublethink. Félix An (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We should not use incorrect terminology because of some fear of what someone may or may not do on some other website. That really would be censoring ourselves. Also, reverting my edit due to someone else's potential conflict of interest doesn't make any sense, unless you are claiming that *I* have some sort of conflict. - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But if we are using words that don't communicate the right meaning to readers (i.e. the truth that Santa Claus does not exist), it would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The meaning communicated to the readers has to be right, and I think "imaginary" conveys the meaning more strongly and clearly compared to "legendary" or "folkloric". Félix An (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that we should use words that communicate the right meaning to readers. Now how do we communicate that Saint Nicholas is an exaggerated version of a historical person, and not something that was made up ('imagined') out of whole cloth? A good parallel would be someone like Johnny Appleseed, who is called a legend in his article. - MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does mention - in detail - that Santa is based on Saint Nicholas under the first heading. The lead section should summarize the most important ideas to the reader right off the bat and let them understand right away, instead of having them scroll down and read carefully to learn crucial information (i.e. the fact that Santa doesn't exist). The choice of the words needs to make ALL readers think, "Santa is not a real, living person" right away, not "Hmm... he might be living, but I'm not too sure," because at that point, younger readers will go with their instict and think that he is real, although older readers might bother to scroll down and read carefully. Félix An (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you want us to knowingly use an incorrect term in the lead sentence for fear that 1) Readers won't know what the word 'legend' means, even if we link it and 2) readers won't continue onto the second sentence of the lead, which makes clear that Santa is based on a fourth century historical figure? - MrOllie (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• sigh* No, not incorrect. "Legend" might actually be more incorrect, as it is ambiguous and might be interpreted by believers in Santa Claus as a famous historical person, like Sir John A. MacDonald or René Lévesque, rather than a myth. This would then make the article not 100% accurate. Félix An (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Santa Claus is an exaggerated version of a historical person, Saint Nicholas. You accept that is true, correct? - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Of course I know that! I've known that since forever! Félix An (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what exactly is the problem with a reader interpreting that Santa Claus is based on a 'famous historical person'? - MrOllie (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has to clearly differentiate between the historical St. Nicholas, who was real, and Santa Claus (with the red suit, ho-ho-ho, chimneys, etc.), who is not real. Félix An (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But the article has to do that without falsely implying that there is no historical basis at all in the opening sentence. - MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The opening already describes Santa as an "imaginary figure originating in Western Christian culture." If the "originating in Western Christian Culture" part is not clear enough, we can further clarify it, while still keeping the word "imaginary" to describe Santa Claus. I just realized that the next sentence clarifies it, saying, "The modern Santa Claus grew out of traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas..." so the opening already clarifies that the imaginary character was based on a historical person. Félix An (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the opening claims that Santa is imaginary and nearly immediately it contradicts itself. You have summarized the problem, now how can we fix that in a way that you won't revert? - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The current lead gives the impression that Santa Claus is an imaginary figure indirectly based on a historical saint as well as other figures. Is that not accurate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility: how about changing "an imaginary figure" to "a figure in Western folklore"? Would that work as a compromise? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Folklore is inclusive enough to cover cases where there is some element of historical basis, but the majority of the story is made up, which is what we have here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about an "imaginary figure in Western folklore..."? The words "imaginary" and "folkloric" have different connotations to them, so I wouldn't think it would be redundant to have both. It's more likely for people to interpret it correctly this way. Félix An (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Imaginary isn't the correct term, so I rather think it is more likely they would interpret it incorrectly that way. Felix, could you perhaps suggest some phrasing that would be acceptable to you that does not contain the word 'imaginary'? That's the sticking point for me. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as a way to bridge the gap: "a figure in Western folklore" with a link to the definition I referenced above. That definition, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folklore, states plainly that folklore pertains to "false or unsubstantiated beliefs". For ease of reference, I've repeated the pertinent parts of the definition from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/folklore here:

• the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.
• a body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.
Kringle Claus (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringle Claus (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How about "mythical"? The dictionary definition for "mythical" tells readers that it is from folklore and that it is imaginary. Félix An (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mythical sounds good to me. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. I did add this critical piece of information to the lead section a few days ago, so I think that makes up for it:

"Typically, after the children have fallen asleep, parents play the role of Santa Claus and leave their gifts under the Christmas tree. Tags on gifts for children are sometimes signed by their parents "From Santa Claus" before the gifts are laid beneath the tree." Félix An (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I also mentioned "folklore" and "myths" a few extra times throughout the article so it's clearer that he doesn't exist. Now, we should ensure the rest of the article is written objectively, that it is written based on the fact that Santa doesn't exist. Félix An (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "mythical" works. Read the lead of the Myth article. Santa Claus doesn't seem to fit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really lost now. Should we switch back to "legendary"? Félix An (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree that "mythical" is not quite the right term. A centaur is mythical; Santa evolved from historical roots over hundreds of years. Legendary is a sub-optimal choice because, as Felix has rightly pointed out, it can be misinterpreted. If legendary is acceptable to everyone else though... . Felix, you have not stated an objection to using folklore (other than asserting that I would do something nefarious with it). "Folklore" is the most accurate description to date. I have no problem supporting a different phrase if a better one can be found, regardless of who suggests it.

Felix, I am also removing your additional wording until there is some consensus here. Let's avoid an edit war and discuss this on the Talk page in a positive, productive fashion. Both you and I have a potential conflict of interest. Kringle Claus (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do oppose the use of the world "folkloric." I have a feeling that the meaning can still be bent somehow to argue that Santa Claus exists. Félix An (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reason other than "a feeling" or "bent somehow"? Please understand that this is in no way meant as an attack on you. I'm just trying to get us to the best possible description. As an aside (and definitely irrelevant to the selection of which phrase to use), I suspect that a phrase like "folkloric" would cause anyone who is seeking the truth about Santa to search for the definition of that phrase. Then they would discover that he is based on "false or unsubstantiated beliefs". This would probably be less likely to happen with more commonplace phrases like "mythical", "legendary"" or perhaps even plain "folklore". Again though, completely irrelevant to our consideration here. Kringle Claus (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I insist on keeping the paragraph (it's just copied from down below) regarding the fact that parents play Santa Claus, because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY without scrolling down. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Félix An (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is just copied from down below, then why duplicate it? If it still exists on the page then how is removing the duplicate censorship? "because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY"? Remember, "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringle Claus (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For the love of Christmas, just go back to LEGENDARY. It is the correct word. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F42A:4F40:7281:322C (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I know, Kringle Claus, I am making the readers of the article my top concern. I want to make it as clear as possible the truth about Santa Claus. It was agreed upon in the past on this talk page (see the archives) that the opening of the article should be clear that Santa does not exist. To the anonymous IP address above, we agreed that "legendary" is too ambiguous. Félix An (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To repeat: If it is just copied from down below, then why duplicate it? If it still exists on the page then how is removing the duplicate censorship? "because it's an important fact that readers need to know RIGHT AWAY"? Remember, "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns." Are you suggesting that duplicating content in an article is now acceptable? It would also appear that you are placing your personal opinion over the readers' interests: note your comment "readers need to know RIGHT AWAY". There are three categories of readers of this article: those who no longer believe in Santa; those who want to find out the truth; and, those who want to believe in Santa. Again, I invite you to discuss this matter here in a positive, productive fashion.
Regarding the descriptive adjective, I'll ask my questions again: "Do you have any reason other than "a feeling" or "bent somehow"?" Please understand that this is in no way meant as an attack on you. I'm just trying to get us to the best possible description. Kringle Claus (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any opinions on the words to use in the lead section? I would like to hear from some others, please. Félix An (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Legendary is fine, and was the consensus for many years. I don't see a strong enough consensus to change it here, and many have even agreed that legendary is acceptable. Established consensus should remain until a new consensus is formed.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If people don't know what the simple word "legendary" means, they can look it up. It is exactly the right word. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:4CC0:7718:DE43:F165 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not the right word, because the more common meaning of "legendary" today is "very famous" (both definitions are in the dictionary), and the reader might understand it as such, as when one Googles "legendary people", there are people such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump, etc., and obviously, Santa Claus should not be categorised as such. Therefore, the use of the word "imaginary" is better, and there are many WP:RS that use the word. I cited a few. Félix An (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So you've said, several times. And the inadequacies of 'imaginary' have been pointed out to you several times. It is time for you to propose some new wording or stop beating the dead horse. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one but I wholeheartedly agree the opening section's use of "Legendary" is not the best choice of wording. We'd like our children to open up an encyclopedia and figure straight out he's not a real person. A fictional character that's modeled after some deeds of an actual historical figure does not disqualify the fictional character itself from being termed fictional. And no it's not just children, I read Wikipedia 5-10 hours a day and understand English but millions and millions of us are not a native academic English speaker and I think we must be taken into account to by not using heavily complex wording that needs research to figure out the true intent of. I immediately searched up legendary when I saw it and said, uh, doesn't "Legendary" also mean he can be a real legendary person? And some (highly respected dictionaries) seem to agree so. Thus, I believe we can bridge the gap by saying a Santa Claus is a fictional character based on a historical figure Saint Nicholas, or something of that nature. No one would object that right? Yet I am no Wikipedia editor or English master to be able to say so. So you tell me. I suggest a fictional character based on a historical/legendary Saint Nicholas. It's 100% factually correct, isn't it? More simple and way clearer than the current status of legendary which has a double meaning, especially for those of us not as versed as you guys in English terminology, and of course children. Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dr.EbrahimSaadawi, and that is why I started this discussion last year. Even rearranging the words so that it says "a character from legends" is clearer, because in this context, it clarifies that "legend" means "folk tales" and not "very famous people". A "legendary figure" could be interpreted as "very famous figure", which is unclear on whether Santa is real or not, and Wikipedia is "Not Censored" to protect anyone's feelings. I would prefer using "imaginary", "fictional", etc. and further clarify in the leading section that it was from legends based on St. Nicholas, or "legendary." Also, read WP:SANTA for a WP editor's opinion regarding why Wikipedia should be clear that Santa does not exist. Merry Christmas! Félix An (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Commentators on the RFC disagreed, though, so it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - MrOllie (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus can change over time if people start thinking differently: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. Perhaps we should get more people here to get some more opinions. Félix An (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's only been a few months, and there is no indication that anything has changed. We all understand that you still don't agree, but it is time to accept that you are in a minority on this. Please stop recycling the same discussion points, please stop adding repetitive wording to remind the reader of your POV. - MrOllie (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not a minority, because in the old RfC: Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus it was agreed that the lead section should be clear that Santa doesn't exist. Félix An (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The other edits to the lead section seem to intentionally make it more ambiguous, which goes against the consensus. Félix An (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It was quite clear before your recently added repetitious reminders. It's just bad writing to keep inserting the 'said to' wherever you can shoehorn it into the text. The RFC was clear, legendary is fine, and if anyone is confused about what the word means they can click on the link. - MrOllie (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

If someone didn't know about Santa Claus and wanted to learn more, or thinks that Santa is real, seeing "He does..." rather than "He is said to do..." makes it seem like that is objectively what he does. For example, "Donald Trump makes America great again" and "Donald Trump is said to make America great again" have two very different connotations. One is presented as an objective truth, while the other is not. (I do not support Trump. It is for illustrative purposes only.) Félix An (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Only if one accepts your assumption that most people don't know what the word 'legend' means. - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Should we use "character from legends" instead of "legendary character" (use the noun/preposition instead of the adjective), so that the meaning of "legendary" will not be misinterpreted?

I was WP:BOLD and made my change. Apparently, some people just want to stick with "legendary" to describe Santa Claus, but how about changing the part of speech so that the meaning is clearer? We should not be intentionally trying to make the article less accessible and more vague, so as to censor the truth that Santa does not exist from kids. Félix An (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No. We had an RFC about this. Your endless attempts to chip away at the consensus wording are becoming disruptive. I know you once suffered some personal embarrasment about this and I emphasize, but Wikipedia is not here to right that wrong. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Let it go, Félix. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we should not. "Legendary" is plenty clear and this article is not trying to hide the ball on the literal existence of Santa Claus. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I, too, among others, do not support "legendary" because of its ambiguity. I've previously advocated "imaginary", which remained in the text for a moderate period, before giving way to...legendary. I'll offer a new suggestion: "non-real character". Not exactly elegant, but I think it says what needs to be said. It can be combined in a sentence with legendary or mythical or historical, along the lines of: "Santa Claus is a non-real character derived from folklore and legends that grew up around the historical person of Saint Nicholas." Part of the objection to 'imaginary' was that tangible representations exist. I could see a similar objection to 'non-real', which I'll address by saying this article is, I believe, about the evidently immortal, legendary/mythical/non-real character who performs miraculous feats (visiting every home in one night with a single bag of toys for the world's population of children, traveling through the air, pulled by reindeer), not about the mortal flesh-and-blood human physical representations seen in mall Santas and the like. Such manifestations are described in the article, but are not the actual subject of the article, which is the "real" Santa Claus, who is a non-real personage. DonFB (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Santa_Claus/Archive_11#RfC_about_the_wording_lead_section_of_the_article. This was already discussed this year. You should remember, since you participated in that discussion. Legendary was agreed upon. Let us wait at least a year before we re-open this wound (you can't just call for an election to be re-held because you don't agree with the result, in real life or here). Continuing to attempt to undermine a pretty clear consensus is just disruptive. But, I'll humor you: non-real is synonymous with 'fake.' Are you saying Santa Claus is fake? No, the character clearly exists. So, no. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly fine as it is. This discussion doesn't need to keep dragging on for another six months. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Only Zac (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Santa Claus in Movies

I find it surprisingly vague when the article talks about Santa Claus in Movies especially when the topic has already been covered and referenced showing there were several movies and short films about Santa Claus as far back as 1897... Santa_Claus_in_film. I am not sure how to write up such a correction but I do suggest that such a correction be made to indicate these earlier movies/short films. Other references: IMDB.com OpenCulture.com: Links to the early films but goes on to explain that the 1898 movie goes so much further in both story and film-making technique using very advanced film-making elements. YouTube.com: The 1898 film by George Albert Smith Iloxton (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Looking back on the past

I came back here today to reflect on the almost year-long debate I had with other editors regarding the wording to describe Santa Claus. I just wanted to say, in case anyone was wondering, is that I genuinely was not trying to contribute to the so-called "war against Christmas." Santa Claus was something that bothered me for many years, as I became atheist for many years (until 2018, when I became Christian) after I found out that Santa Claus was not real. When I was little, I did not interpret this article correctly, leading me to interpret "imaginary" as "fictional". Now that I am 18, I think that being vague and not telling the truth about Santa Claus upfront is a detriment to their mental health. I think that the truth of Santa Claus should be told upfront, just like the way Wikipedia writes about pseudoscience such as "creation science" and COVID-19 misinformation, warning of pseudoscience upfront. Not only did I try to change the wording of this article, but my past experiences of Santa Claus had bothered me mentally for the rest of that Christmas. It made me depressed to the point I was not in the mood to go to school, and due to my bad experiences with Santa, I made and put up posters across Toronto, asserting that Santa Claus was not real and was merely a legendary character. I apologize if I acted very annoying, but I still want to make clear that articles on Wikipedia should still not be censored, and this includes Santa too. I hope you enjoy the rest of your spring. Thank you for your understanding. Félix An (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

North American Tradition

The article is rather unclear regarding the topic. Santa Claus is a distinctly North American tradition. Though it is obviously inspired by various European traditions, Santa Claus is different from those traditions. The article seems to be vague as to whether it is really talking about the North American tradition or whether it is more broadly talking about the wider traditions of Father Christmas. Given that those other traditions already have articles, I would argue that this article should be strictly about the North American tradition (since that it what the title suggests anyway). To that end, the lead should be rewritten to that effect. Perhaps something like:

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Kris Kringle, or simply Santa, is a legendary figure in North American tradition associated with Christmas. According to legend, he lives at the North Pole in the company of elves, making gifts and delivering them to children around the world on Christmas Eve. He is said to deliver the toys using a sleigh pulled through the air by flying reindeer.

The legend of Santa Claus is derived from Protestant European traditions brought by immigrants to the United States and Canada. These include legends of Saint Nicholas of Myra, a fourth-century Greek bishop who became a legendary figure in many European traditions, as well as Father Christmas, a personification of the Christmas season also popular in Britain and France. The name Santa Claus derives from the Dutch name for Saint Nicholas.

Santa Claus is generally depicted as a portly, jolly, white-bearded man, often with spectacles, wearing a red coat with white fur collar and cuffs, white-fur-cuffed red trousers, red hat with white fur, and black leather belt and boots, carrying a bag full of gifts for children. He is commonly portrayed as laughing in a way that sounds like "ho ho ho". This image became popular in the 19th century due to the significant influence of the 1823 poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas." Caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast also played a role in the creation of Santa's image. This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, children's books, films, and advertising.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.204.77.11 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think, based on the opinion expressed in WP:SANTA, that we should also expand the lead section to not only clarify that it is mainly a North American tradition, but also clarify the role that companies, parents, etc. in North America play to provide the illusion that Santa is real to kids. Félix An (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Such an expansion was also rejected by the RFC. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

To tell the truth: real, hard-core Dutch Protestants hate Sinterklaas, Santa and Christmas, as popish propaganda. According to them a Christmas tree is Pagan at best and Satanic at worst. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Under "Criticism" and under "Controversy about deceiving children," please change

"Some children have reacted poorly, including rejecting the family's religious beliefs on the grounds that if the parents lied about the unprovable existence of Santa Claus, then they might lie about the unprovable existence of God as well."   to   "In some cases, children have even rejected their family's beliefs on the grounds that if the parents lied about the unprovable existence of Santa Claus, then they might lie about the unprovable existence of God as well." 24.131.152.212 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not sure why we'd remove the word religious before beliefs when talking about the existence of god? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Under one of the pictures in the article it says

'Sinterklaas, Netherlands (2009) on his horse called Slecht Weer Vandaag or Amerigo'

This is incorrect. The name Slecht Weer Vandaag is only used in Flanders (Belgium). Moreover the name Amerigo, used for Sinterklaas' horse in the Netherlands, was changed to Ozosnel in 2019. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paard_van_Sinterklaas_(paard)#Ozosnel) --31.4.189.93 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

98.151.201.187 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

one of the few characters appearing in multiple series of the franchise: Eight episodes

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021 (2)

person originating in Western Christian culture 98.151.201.187 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

FAQ for this talk page?

I added an FAQ to the talk page of this article, but it was removed by User:El cid, el campeador (diff). The FAQ can still be found at Talk:Santa Claus/FAQ. I wrote it based on the essay WP:SANTA, which was originally written over a decade ago by User:David Shankbone, with a few corrections by me and User:Guy Macon, the author of WP:YWAB. El Cid thought the FAQ was biased. How do you think I should correct the FAQ so it is better? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, your frequently asked question (which seems to be mostly asked by you) was: "Santa Claus is real, but this article says that he isn't! Why doesn't this page give equal consideration to the existence and nonexistence of Santa Claus?" Your answer was: "Santa Claus is not real; he is a legendary character. This fact is mentioned in many reliable sources cited in the article. To be "agnostic" to the existence of Santa Claus gives undue weight to a fringe position, and violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. In the spring of 2019, an RfC regarding the lead section of the Santa Claus was held on whether the lead section should be "agnostic" about the existence of Santa Claus. The end result was that editors agreed that the lead section of the article should make it clear that Santa Claus does not exist." The question and the answer are both POV/editorializing. FAQs need to be neutral and written in Wikipedia's own voice, yours is clearly not, in both the language and content. The very fact that you created this FAQ for no apparent reason (I do not see any evidence that there is disruption on this issue) two years after the RFC is itself suspect. My conclusion is that no FAQ is needed at all, as the issue is not being debated or challenged, and that you created this FAQ simply as a way to again push your agenda. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's biased or not, there seems absolutely no need for such a FAQ. It should go. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thrombeldinbar

Should Thrombeldinbar get a mention in other related characters? Middle More Rider (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Link in cittation #42 is broken. 2001:1C02:2D21:1D00:724A:DD97:B43E:5BCF (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Letter Writing

What the hell is with the whole boys vs girls theme in the letter writing section? 2600:387:F:4816:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is a source, and it does talk about the difference between boys' letters and girls' letters, so.... HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

santa aint real ya weenies

santa aint real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheturtles5446 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That is correct, however, the word "legendary" as used in article means "from legends or myths", not "very famous". There was previous consensus to use such terminology to describe Santa Claus. I'm not a fan of it, but oh well... Félix An (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was involved in this page maybe 10 years ago and was curious to see where things had ended up... I just read all the previous RfCs and discussions and it actually seems like there wasn't previous consensus to use "legendary". There was broad debate, broad disagreement, and two or three users repeatedly berating anyone who disagreed claiming that "consensus has been reached", "stop beating a dead horse", discouraging further discussion for no real reason, then later referring back to the RfC which didn't actually support their conclusions. As a linguist, I'd like to note (as other users did previously) that "legendary" is a polysemous word, so its use here actually goes against the spirit of consensus from the RfC. Why is just one word needed, anyhow? Why can't we say "Santa Claus is a fictional/imaginary/not-real character based on a real historical figure" (clumsy wording, just an idea)? --72.203.252.101 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes Virginia... in Canada?

I don't think the "Yes Virginia, there really is a Santa Clause" refrain has become an indelible part of Christmas lore in Canada, or however the article refers to it. As a 46-y/o in Ontario, I'd never heard it. As it turns out, neither have my parents (originally from BC and Quebec). I asked a couple mates from Alberta and Manitoba, and they'd also never heard it.

Maybe it's popular in the States? Perhaps worth an edit anyhow. 173.206.27.77 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

In the Dutch, Belgian, Swiss folklore paragraph:

Change 36% of the Dutch only give presents on Sinterklaas evening or the day itself, 6 December,[17] To 36% of the Dutch only give presents on Sinterklaas evening or the day itself, 5 December,[17]

In the Netherlands we celebrate "Sinterklaas(evening)" on December 5th (not 6th) S913 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The source says otherwise. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The cited source only says that Sinterklaas day is 6 December. I don't see anything in there about 36% of Dutch people giving presents or whether they are more likely to give presents the evening before or during the official day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[Response to "Not done"] Nowhere in the source [18] it's specifically mentioned that in the Netherlands, Sinterklaas is celebrated on the 6th (which wouldn't be correct anyway). Only in Belgium (where he's also called Sinterklaas) it's officially celebrated on the 6th, in the Netherlands Sinterklaas official celebrated on the 5th: see paragraph 1 in the Dutch version of this page: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinterklaas The 36% apparently came from source [19], but that link is no longer correct. S913 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now:I don't think there's any not-needlessly wordy way to differentiate between the feast day and the day the Dutch celebrate. The closest I came up with is 36% of the Dutch only give presents on Sinterklaas evening(the typical day for celebrations in the Netherlands) or the day itself, 6 December, but that still feels too awkward to change it right now. Marking as answered. SpinningCeres 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hi there! Please add Svyatiy Mykolay as related figure with link to Saint Nicholas page ( Original page is here - Svyatyi Mykolay

Thank you. --Bohdan Tkhir (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Modern “Fashion Santa” spin-off addition

He’s reputable, notable and a global sensation since 2015. “Fashion Santa” also known at Paul Mason, registered the trademark in various countries and won a court battle for the rights to against a Toronto mall. Sometimes referred to as the Sexy or Keto Santa and also has numerous viral memes. 2607:FEA8:661:400:D55A:ABA7:4DDE:1F18 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fly Agaric Claim

The claim “The flying reindeer could symbolize the use of fly agaric by Sámi shamans.[28]” seems like pure speculation. Should be removed if we can’t find a much better reference. 97.115.83.185 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Russia running wikipedia?

I see my comment on the myth of Thrombeldinbar in relation to the myth of Santa Clause

'21 November 2021‎ Middle More Rider talk contribs‎ 6,017 bytes +202‎ →‎Thrombeldinbar: new section',

has been removed. So what happened to free speech and the right of a person to have an opinion or question? If this article is based on this sort of supression of writing, there is absolutely no way I can trust it, and it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Middle More Rider (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. Since you made the comment almost a year ago, the archive bot moved it to the archives. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to anyone concerned.

This is something I had never heard of, so when I came to look at it for reference I did not know what was going on.

Middle More Rider (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

Santa Claus live in Finland in Korvatunturi Artsistii (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be added Artsistii (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done @Artsistii Please provide a coherent explanation of your edit request, a verbatim copy of the text that you wish to add, and a relevant source. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Dunder and Blixem

The Dutch saying "donder en bliksem" isn't old Dutch at all, but still a present day saying. 109.37.150.252 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

I need to edit a comma and some other grammatical issues in this Wikipedia article. IDontEvenKnowSad (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Some issues in the "Predecessor figures" section

There are two things in the "Germanic paganism, Wodan, and Christianization" part that I think should be fixed:

1_ When talking about Odin, it says: "the old blue-hooded, cloaked, white-bearded Giftbringer of the north". One of Odin's names stated by him in Grimnismál 47 is "Hárbarðr", which means "Grey Beard".

2_ In the last paragraph on that section, it says: "the Yule goat was an earlier bearer of gifts, which has to some degree become conflated with Santa clause", instead of "Claus". PremonitionalHuman (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

I need to edit a comma and some other grammatical issues in this Wikipedia article. IDontEvenKnowSad (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Some issues in the "Predecessor figures" section

There are two things in the "Germanic paganism, Wodan, and Christianization" part that I think should be fixed:

1_ When talking about Odin, it says: "the old blue-hooded, cloaked, white-bearded Giftbringer of the north". One of Odin's names stated by him in Grimnismál 47 is "Hárbarðr", which means "Grey Beard".

2_ In the last paragraph on that section, it says: "the Yule goat was an earlier bearer of gifts, which has to some degree become conflated with Santa clause", instead of "Claus". PremonitionalHuman (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Dutch and Swiss tradition

The section on the Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss tradition is partly wrong. Viz. the Swiss tradition must be kept apart from the Dutch and Belgian ones. In Switzerland, and likewise in Germany and I think also in Austria, Santa Claus is additional to the more prominent Christmas traditions. You only get some sweets there on 6 Dec., put in the polished shoes you put out of your room, provided by Santa Claus (Samichlaus in German-speaking Switzerland, Saint-Nicolas in Western Switzerland, Sünnerklaas in the northwest of Germany, Nikolaus in the rest of Germany). The big gift occasion is Christmas in both countries. On Christmas, gifts are brought by the Christkind (christ-child) in Switzerland and catholic regions of Germany (south and west of the country, from the Austrian border along the border region to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, almost until the coast region plus some islets away from the western and southern borders), the Weihnachtsmann (christmas man) in protestant regions (rest of the country). -- 2A02:8070:5183:CA60:AC98:D408:3CFF:3940 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"Annual Gift Man" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Annual Gift Man has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 23 § Annual Gift Man until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

My 8 year old found this article.

There are children who can easily read this. Even though they will believe what they want to believe, like my little girl, but please write this info with that mind. Most parents around the world would greatly appreciate that. 2603:7081:C000:2E:ACAF:476E:74A0:3BB3 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and an early Merry Christmas to your family. What changes can you or she suggest? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this should be designated as an adult website. There are many outright dangerous points for 8 years olds at Wikipedia (lots of terrorist ideologies and perversions). This article isn't one of them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The moral of the story is that you should not let your eight year old child browse Wikipedia without supervision. There are far more shocking articles than this one, which reveals that Santa Claus is a legend. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we have a paragraph in here that said how old children usually are when they realize that Santa isn't "real"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 2603:7081:C000:2E:ACAF:476E:74A0:3BB3's daughter, there is a Santa Claus...(then read aloud to her the editorial displayed on this page, substituting "Wikipedian" for "little", thanks.) I once witnessed a half a busload of people lie to protect a woman from the police who hit another woman who had just told her child that there was no Santa Claus. As for the short summary and the lead, I've edited it to say 'iconic' instead of 'legendary' because one of the alternate names listed in the first sentence is Saint Nicholas, who is not legendary but was a real person. So "iconic" works better, all around, and, with Saint Nicholas included, is encyclopedically accurate where "legendary" is not. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, I think you might wish to read Legendary (hagiography), and the perhaps self-revert. Real people can be legendary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Legendary is a compromise arrived at after an RFC and much, much talk page discussion - largely because legendary is inclusive of exaggerated versions of historical people. Please don't open that can of worms again. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added a new section at Santa Claus#Age-appropriate behavior. Based on past experience, this produces two responses: "You're kidding – they actually research this?" (answer: yes) and "You are a horrible, childhood-destroying person!" (guilty as charged, I guess? But maybe the parents of eight year olds will read it and discover that they're already on the low-magic end of the bell curve, and that there's nothing to keep a developmentally normal child from figuring this out during the next year, no matter what Wikipedia articles do or don't say). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not just a Wikipedia page, the first sentences of each article usually end up as search engine summaries which, for instance, will be seen by any child "googling" Santa Claus. So being very careful about lead paragraph wording is important here, and not only here but on all articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you assuming that we have a community consensus to protect children from the facts? I don't want to see this article open with "Santa Claus is fake. It's just your parents", but I don't want that because it's unencyclopedic, not because I feel the need to protect school-age children from discovering that their classmates are right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What I assume is that Wikipedia will not purposely traumatize children, which any major change towards "not real" would (not might) do. On this issue let's leave it up to parents to let children know which side of the bread truth is buttered on (usually the edges). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The research indicates that children aren't actually traumatized by discovering that Santa is only as real as Elmo. Apparently, most of them feel something closer to empowerment. They feel like they've cracked the adult conspiracy and they interpret as a sign that they're growing up. I imagine that eight year olds who are actively seeking information are more likely to feel this way than four year olds, but preschoolers are perfectly capable of disbelieving any older kids who surprise them with unwanted accurate information, and they're unlikely to be reading (at all, including Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Elmo's not real? Thanks a lot, Randy's belief system needs reset. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toughpigs assures me that Elmo is real, and he is an expert on Muppets (seriously). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As any expert on Muppets or quantum mechanics will attest, there are many different kinds of real. Elmo is both real and make believe. Also, if the consensus here is that Santa Claus is not real, then I hope somebody tells him; it'll save him a lot of bother on December 24th. Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a previous RFC on this topic, and the results were that the opening section of the article should make it clear that Santa does not exist, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Also see the essay WP:SANTA. Félix An (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That RFC was poorly worded and consensus misjudged. I can find no other legendary figure who is overtly called fictional in the lede (see: King Arthur, Noah, Cú Chulainn). Some article use excessive flowery and euphemistic language to avoid doing so (a person favorite: "Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era, and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.") I struggle to understand why some are so interested in breaking from convention here. We seem to be saying it is only acceptable to directly confront and contradict those who believe in legendary figures if they are children. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually King Arthur also includes the word 'legendary'. But your point is a good one. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The exact quoted phrase "is a legendary figure" appears in 95 articles right now. The past tense and plural forms add another 40. A more inclusive phrase, "is a legendary" (e.g., character, creature, king, etc.) finds more than 900 articles using the present tense and 750 using the past tense. This suggests that we aren't breaking any conventions by using this phrase in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe my point missed its mark. The word "legendary" is appropriate and in keeping with convention. The proposal in the RFC to explicitly say "Santa is not real" is unconventional and argumentative, like saying "Abraham was not real". GreatCaesarsGhost 18:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand you better now. I agree that "Santa is not real" is not desirable. It's an unencyclopedic tone.

"Santa is a fictional character" sounds encyclopedic, but it's complicated by the generally accepted fact that Nicholas of Myra existed and was not a fictional character, which leaves us with a Ship of Theseus problem: at what point has the original St Nick been changed so much that this St Nick is no longer the same person? Describing this St Nick as "legendary" solves that problem, as a legend (strictly speaking) is a story based in real fact(s), with optional bits of artistic license layered on top. Saying that "Santa Claus is a legendary figure" means that the guy in the red suit is based on a 4th century bishop, but with a lot of fiction layered on top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Maybe this article should be rebalanced. the underlying message is that Santa Claus is not real. This is disputed. if you take this reputable source (the Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/22/psychologists-pinpoint-age-when-children-become-sceptical-about-santa-claus

It states:

'While most adults have fallen for the myth that Santa doesn’t exist, many children still believe – even if the idea of a single individual visiting the homes of billions of children in a single night is at odds with their wider reasoning skills.'

and

'Although Santa clearly frowns on such behaviour, he will be relieved to hear that, regardless of their experience, the vast majority of sceptical adults and children said that they would continue the Santa tradition with their own children, or were already doing so.'

There are many respectable newspaper articles stating thar Santa is real, so perhaps this article should be modified to make it clear that there is dispute over the Santa's status as a real or legendary figure. 2A01:B340:84:F30B:D4AB:7C2:608:5602 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not convinced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic in this article. The only term that can be close to looking problematic is the term "legendary," a term that most 8-year-olds don't know the definition of. But also, I have to add that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored so that's already a huge concession to only call Santa "legendary" once. CerealContainer (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References to incorporate

I cannot edit the page, but I would like to incorporate two references on the "Representation to Children" section:

- Lévi-Strauss, C. 1952. Le Père Noël supplicié. Les Temps Modernes 77: 1572–1590.

In this article, the anthropologist explains two important things: 1) the only formal difference between Santa and other divinities or religious figures is that adults don't believe in him. 2) Santa is the result of adults using children to access magic.

- Torra-Merin, M. (2023), The hidden power of children in Christmas traditions: Unveiling the role of secrecy and agency. Anthropology Today, 39: 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12845

Children of some age can lie about knowing the truth. Thus, is not unusual for them to be an active part of the deception. Even in spite of adults believing it otherwise. Mtorra (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The description of the first source makes it sound like the article claims Santa is unique compared to other magical beings that children hear about but adults don't believe in (e.g., the Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy, Sandman, Leprechauns, elves, fairies, etc.). That doesn't sound very accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The first article does not talk about those magical beings you mention.

However, Lévi-Strauss main arguments are not only applicable to Santa but all of them; since is the adult disbelieve what makes them "false", and through all of them adults use children to make magic be felt in the society. In fact, compares Santa to Kachina, explaining that they are similar in those aspects.

This use of children is explained by Michael Taussig on his chapter in Aesthetics Subjects, and in the second reference from my first comment. Mtorra (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like the argument is "the only formal difference between one set of magical beings (e.g., Santa) and another set of magical beings (e.g., God) is no competent adults believe in Santa, and most competent adults believe in God."

Is the part about adults manipulating children to make magic be felt in society the more important point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes! But not necessarily is about "manipulating" the little ones. I believe it is better to say "use", as in some cases they can decide to play along with adults' deceptions. Mtorra (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mtorra, if you make another six edits, you should be able to edit this article yourself. Have you thought about which ==Section== this information should go in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Home of Santa Claus

I would suggest to elaborate region dependent home of Santa at the beginning of the article. Currently the article seems to strongly support North Pole being the home which is not always the case outside of the North American region. A suggestion: ...who make the toys in his North Pole workshop, and with the aid of flying reindeer who pull his sleigh through the air. The location of Santa's workshop has been disputed, set to be located at the North Pole, Finnish Lapland and many other places. 2001:14BA:4FF:FA00:8F71:1526:D7AD:7E4 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I have striken "North Pole" from the lede as suggested. I don't see the need to get into the dispute in the lede, as this is covered in the "Home" section. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)