Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 4

"Racial"

Under the heading "Dutch folklore" we find this sentence:

With the influx of immigrants to the Netherlands starting in the late 1950's, this story is felt by some to be racial.

Shouldn't that be "racist", not "racial"? I know it's a trend to use the word "racial" for "racist", but this is erroneous. "Racial" just means "having to do with race", it could be good or bad. 195.159.217.98 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (Nick)

I've tagged it with a citation tag. If it isn't addressed in a timely fashion, it goes bye-bye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be "racist". The "Zwarte Piet" though originates from the Moors, so maybe Muslims should feel more attacked than people from Surinam? Bokkie (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed ASAP

The following sections have citation/fact issues that need attention as soon as possible. Without them, I am going to remove the uncited parts to here until they are fully cited. I will wait a weekfrom now before doing so, so act now and avoid the rush. :)

• Early Christian origins - "Saint Nicholas became revered by many as the patron saint of seamen, merchants, archers, children, pharmacists, lawyers, pawnbrokers, prisoners, the city of Amsterdam, and of Russia. In Greece, Saint Nicholas is substituted for Saint Basil (Agios Vasilis in Greek), a 4th century AD bishop from Caesarea."

Added refs for all but Saint Basil--also deleted Russia (whose patron saint is Saint Andrew), replaced with Moscow. I'm not sure what the reference to "substituted for Saint Basil" is supposed to mean, but see Basil of Caesarea. Fitzaubrey 06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dutch folklore - the entire section, save for the last paragraph, needs citation work.
• Christian opposition to Santa Claus most of the section.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Santa Television to external links

Due to semi-protection, I could not add an external link that I think is relevant, santatelevision.com, which is the "Santa Claus’ official Internet television in Lapland in Finland". CNN, BBC & others have done their Christmas specials from the theme park in Northern Finland where Santa TV broadcasts are done. Also, their broadcast was featured in the global Millennium celebration TV broadcast in 2000. In other words, I think the site should be added to the external links list by someone who has access to editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.203.240 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Internal links to other Santa articles

Shouldnt there be something about what santa does? the article mentions that he brings toys, but doesnt really explain that the toys are for nice kids, and naughty ones get coal. or that if a family doesnt have a chimney, he uses the front door with a "magic key"--at least that's been the concensus in my part of the world, among the chimneyless. some kids just get stocking stuffers (silly putty, yoyos, coloring books, candy) while others get extra presents wrapped under the tree in addition to the ones from mom and dad. kids leave cookies for him, contributing to his weight, he says "hohoho", he and his doplegangers work at malls and take requests, a huge list is maintained of who deserves what, kids mail letters to him that end up in the dead letter department at the post office. if i werent american, this article wouldnt reveal too much about america's version of santa. tons about the origins tho, just not a lot about the modern american details. 76.203.22.9 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
me again, i looked on the disambiguation page and read the article for the north american traditions. so that info is somewhere, but could it be more obviously linked to this article? since this article makes clear that sinterklaas and santa claus are so different, folks may want to look up america's jolly fat guy, vs the germanic saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.22.9 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but that seems like a pretty nifty idea. Anyone else? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now to find someone who can be bothered actually doing it...Veggieburgerfish (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Germanic folklore section going bye-bye soon

the recent addition of an 'unreferenced' tag clearly shows the need for this matter to be addressed, considering the traffic the article is liklely to be getting now that the holiday is upon us. I will wait until Sunday before removing the unreferenced section to the Discussion page for citation work. I certainly hope that inspires some hardy soul to add the required reliably citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked this section in an attempt to give it a more solid foundation. What really needs to be done in this section, however, is to make some out and out citations citing direct comments and by whom. Right now we have a little skeleton and much more could be applied here to flesh it out. I will see what I can do over time. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts - but I'm not sure in how far the one book quoted is a reliable source. Is it scientific or rather popular writing? I'm so curious because I never have heard of that Odin theory before. Perhaps it should be labeled as a theory in the article? -- 790 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, "theory" is a little too flattering. It's a hypothesis - an interesting one, but nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.221.148 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of comparisons to this and plenty can be dug up backing it up since there's a lot of scholarly speculation ont he subject going far back. In its current state, it needs a lot of work. I just converted what was already there to kill the reference request tag above it. More citations are definitely needed, it's just a matter of time. Right now I have a lot going on here on Wikipedia and since Christmas is soon coming I am trying to skim through some areas of Christmas tradition that needed or need some Christmas ham and Yule log. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Bloodfox. I made the statement I did to make sure something was done on it, and since you are going to get around to it, we can set the deadline for, say next Sunday. I am going to be keenly aware if anyone tries to forego citation work until after Christmas (not suggesting that to be the case here; I'm just voicing a concern). The article deserves to be good, and good it will be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I like your spirit! :) Check the progress I've made on the articles I mentioned in my previous post since that time - you may be interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have continued editing the article and I think the current state is good enough for the Sunday deadline. It does need more work though and I will dig up some more references when I have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just read this article for the first time, and the lead already is very misleading, especially However, the Dutch Sinterklaas is very different from Santa Claus in many ways. Santa Claus has a suit that comes in many colors depending on the country. is very different from what the books say. Since there is so much change right now, I'll just show you what I think as soon as I got all the missing bits together. --Flammingo^Hey 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

Thank you for your reduction in harshness :) Respectfully, I would ask which policies my request my request would violate. WP:WEIGHT has two provisions that I can see: 1) Tiny minorities should possibly be given no weight. I respectfully submit that Santa believers don't quite fit "tiny" minoritiy, especially in the countries where Santa (and Santa counterparts) are active. True, many of these believers are children, but they are still people. 2) Significant minorities should not be given undue weight. I would peg Santa believers as a significant minority. Is removing the words "mythological" and "fictional" from the lead of this article and replacing them with more appropriate terms like legendary and folkloric really undue weight? It's not even a false change from YOUR point of view, just a slight moderation. Would you like me to find statistics on numbers of Santa believers? Are there other policies this request would violate? Applejuicefool (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Applejuice, I already raised this issue on the Admin noticeboard, and virtually all admins agreed any attempt to whitewash, hide the truth that Santa is a fiction or whatever else you are proposing would, in the words of User:Prodego, "violate a whole load of policies." At this point, I am going to disengage from the conversation, but if I see that the lead wording is changed to hide the fictional or mythical reality of Santa Claus, I will raise it as an admin issue. Lastly, there is no consensus for such a change found here; the only issue is whether to say fictional or mythical. I'm fine with either. Happy Holidays! --David Shankbone 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Both points of view should be presented per WP:YESPOV if they can be sourced per WP:RS. -- Kendrick7^talk —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; however, it is already represented in the "primarily believed by children" language. Any desire to expand upon that language will need to be met by the dominant view with wording to the effect of, "Parents typically tell children that Santa brings them gifts, but in reality parents buy the gifts and eventually tell children the truth." Attempting to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies can also work against your hopes. The current wording has the most consensus. If you want to expand the article with an "Is Santa Real" section, be my guest. But be prepared for consequences you may not desire. --David Shankbone 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Return-from-retirement include. Look, we're an encyclopedia, and an international one to boot. David Shankbone's argument seems to be valid, and people's insistence above that he not participate in discussions about it any further makes no sense. Martinp (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, David is welcome to edit, even though he seems to think that there can be a Grinch without a Santa. htom (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Children are only young for so long, and as Apple said, children are people too. You are correct, that it is not Wikipedia's job to conform to myths. I am a Christian, and believe in God. However, there are others who do not believe in God. Does that mean that the God article should state that he is mythological? No, because that is directly insulting the beliefs of a large number of people. The Santa Claus article is the same situation. There are a great number of people throughout the world who believe Santa Claus exists. Their beliefs are no less valid than yours. 72.185.216.247 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I still would like to know what policies of Wikipedia would be violated if "Mythological" and "Fictional" were changed to "Legendary" and "Folkloric", and references to Santa's alleged falsity are simply removed from the *lead* of the article. I have already addressed the WP:WEIGHT claim with no rebuttal. I have been told there is a "whole load" of policies that would be violated, but nobody can enumerate these policies for me. User:Prodego, can you shed some light on what policies you refer to? I don't see how policies can be violated when no change to the content of the article is being requested, just a very slight change to the order of that content. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick statistic: According to this Washington Post Story [1], 86% of Americans "believed in Santa as a child." According to Wikipedia's own Demographics of the United States article, 24.7% of Americans are aged 0-19 - 42,667,761 males and 40,328,895 females, a total of 82,996,656 children living in the US. Ok, so 18 and 19 year olds are not technically children. I'll go ahead and round it down to an even 75 million children in the US, for argument's sake. So 86% of 75 million is 64,500,000. According to the same article, US population hit the 300 million mark in 2006. Therefore, 21.5% (approximately, I'll allow) of US citizens - NOT INCLUDING adult believers, which are not non-existant - believe in Santa Claus. This is hardly an insignificant minority and should be given appropriate weight when making this decision. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you begin a "belief in Santa Claus" section. Don't worry, I will help you write it once you start it. Until then, I'm working on expanding the Opposition to Santa Claus section. Ho ho ho. --David Shankbone 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The math above is almost comically incorrect. It's 86 percent of children believed until a median age of 8. So of those 64,500,000 a median age of 8 would give only about 21,000,000 who believe. Of that 21,000,000, many are babies and toddlers who can't even speak. So you're actually talking at most 2-3 percent of Americans capable of expressing belief in Santa Clause, none of whom continue to believe after the belief is challenged. By this token we must also count as real the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, under-the-bed monsters, the bogeyman, imaginary friends, Martians, talking frogs, unicorns, dragons, wizards, flying hippos. We'd have to add a section about storks to the article on pregancy. LOL! --JayHenry (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (Please read)

We should have a template put at the top of the page reading "Do Not Request A "Santa for Kids" Page, as Wikipedia is Not Censored, and This Article Will Not Be Created." MalwareSmarts (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be put for it. It would be good to mention that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. Anything that efforts to lie, hide the truth, or whitewash it is a violation of many of our core policies, regardless of the good faith intentions, and hurts our credibility (which is the last thing we need). Could you imagine the blogosphere getting hold of us trying to say Santa is real? Or Colbert? --David Shankbone 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: of course Colbert is real; it's Stephen Colbert that isn't real. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So what should the template look like? I think it should be at the top of the talk page, in big, terrifying print. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just full protect the article from say, the 14th (when great gobs of American schoolkids begin their Christmas holiday) until after the New Year? That seems a lot better than a template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But that won't stop people from going to the talk page and saying "Let's make a Santa For Kids page so kids won't be disappointed." But full protection would be a good idea, because the page would never be either replaced with "Hey Kids, Santa Ain't Real! Ha-Ha!" or with some rewritten nonsense about Santa being real, and by Santa, I mean the fat old man who comes through chimneys (heaven only knows how he gets through mine), and not Saint Nicholas, the historical figure. We could leave the proposed template at the top year round. Would adding a hidden message in the article only editors can see contradict WP:BEANS, or would it be a good idea? MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think protection would be warranted if we start to see a bunch of "Santa is real" messages. If the silly arguments raised on this page start to gain any steam, I will put up a notice on the admin board since any chance this page purports Santa to be real violates core policies. --David Shankbone 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really this is nonsense. If the page gets vandalised, then we'll protect it. We don't do pre-emptive seasonal protection. Nor do we put ugly templates on articles for no good reason.--Doc^g 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposed template was for the talk page. You do have a point, though. MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please check the revisions

David has reverted me twice on the lead sentence, and has now inserted "(and a small number of adults)". The ref provided clearly shows, even in the headline, that the stastical analysis proves 30% of Canadian adults believe that Santa exists. David's continued revision is both misleading and smacks of WP:OWN. I will not edit war over it, but any objective person editing this article can see the lead is now distorted to support one editor's point of view. This is NOT how Wikipedia works. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two major papers, The New York Times (American) and the Evening Standard (UK) stating that this is a belief that is primarily fostered in children. You have one poll that shows 300 Canadian adults believe in Santa Claus (whereas 70% know he does not exist). The problem is your POV, not mine, which is sourced and cited with two major international papers. You've got some minor Canadian poll, which is reflected accurately in the wording. Minority opinions are NOT how Wikipedia works, Jeff. See WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --David Shankbone 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying, could somebody objective look into this? Jeffpw (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what; I will ask some of the admins from the admin discussion to take a look at it. --David Shankbone 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide every major viewpoint and qualify the statements with their sources. This is how NPOV is done. Include all the significant facts weighted by their significance and make it very clear who is saying what. 1 != 2 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So should we say "a small number of Canadian adults"? --David Shankbone 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just say "According to a study by... out of a group of 300 Canadians asked, 30%...", say just what the source says and attribute it to the source. If two sources of similar significance contradict each other then make it clear who the sources are and how they disagree. The trick is to stick with what is published and not let one's opinion enter into it. 1 != 2 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian poll was conducted by reputable pollster Ipsos Reid, and the poll makes it clear that the results can be generalized to the Canadian population: These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid survey fielded from December 12th to December 14th 2006. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1,000 adult Canadians were interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the aggregate results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled. The margin of error will be larger within each sub-grouping of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data. Terjen (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source attesting to the ability for the poll to be generalized, then it would be best to let the reader make their own judgment and just present the published facts. 1 != 2 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This poll is better for Santa Claus in Northern American culture and not for an article dedicated to a worldwide view. I think what should be crafted is a section on the belief in Santa, however, which is perplexing overlooked in the article. --David Shankbone 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Valid point, unless we are to include every country. However it may still be worth mentioning if it directly contradicts another claim by another source. 1 != 2 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I originally had "primarily by children" in the lead, but "primarily" was considered a "weasel word" and taken out, even though that statement is factual, as evidenced by the Canadian poll. --David Shankbone 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Look the lead should narrate the elements of the cultural mythos. Whether anyone actually believe it can be discussed later in the article, it at all.--Doc^g 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A vast improvement. --David Shankbone 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mythological"

According to Wiktionary, "Mythological"[2] means 1. of, or relating to myths or mythology; 2. legendary; 3. (colloquial) imaginary, fabulous. I'll address #1 in a second. #2 is already used in the same sentence, and so would be redundant if this is the definition of mythological we're going for, and #3 is a colloqual definition and surely doesn't apply to an encyclopedic article.

Now for definition #1. Also according to Wiktionary, a "myth"[3] is 1. A story of a great but unknown age which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient story of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin. 2. (colloquial) A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable. This word originates from the Sanskrit word "Mithya"; with the same meaning [AR] 3. (colloquial) A belief or story that illustrates a cultural ideal; stories that help explain how to live. Example: Higher Education Myth: If you go to college, receive your degree, you will be a smarter person and make a lot of money. Again, colloquial definitions are certainly suspect with regards to an encyclopedia article.

The first definition of myth doesn't apply to Santa Claus because the Santa Claus story's age is not "unknown". It dates to a 4th Century Christian bishop. Santa may bear some resemblance to Odin, but they are definitely two different figures. Odin is a myth - Santa is not.

Why don't we just take out "mythological" and go with the word legendary? According to the above definition of Mythological, legendary is a synonym anyway. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Myth is a slippery word. It has a popular meaning of "untrue", and an academic meaning of explaining the origins. Personally I think it isn't totally incorrect to use it here, and it certainly isn't worth arguing over, but if it is going to be contentious, best not using it at all.--Doc^g 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about fictional?--David Shankbone 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'd be fine with fictional instead of mythological, as it's probably more accurate. Legendary is a bit ambiguous as to meaning. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. --David Shankbone 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing this article anymore, as it has turned into such an unpleasant experience, but I will remind David that he has gone over 3RR on the lead sentence, and suggest he revert himself. Jeffpw (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no 3RR on the first sentence - the article is going through a healthy amount of revision and expansion and is being changed in the normal course of things. There is no one edit I have made that has gone over the 3RR. I'm sorry that it has become an unpleasant experience for you to write this encyclopedia entry on a fictional being. --David Shankbone 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

David, I went ahead and fixed your bad-faith edit. Please note that I don't want, and am not threatening, an edit-war, but you're ignoring my attempts to solve this problem civilly. We need to work together to reach an appropriate solution. I have offered several compromise offers, none of which have been dignified with a response in kind. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You should restore mythological or fictional. --David Shankbone 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a justification for it? As I pointed out, Mythological is a synonym for legendary, so that route would be redundant. He's not fictional. He may be in many works of fiction, but he did not originate in them. He was not invented. The legend around St. Nicholas, a real person, grew and grew and morphed into Santa Claus. So Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, a real, not invented, person. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. First of all, mythological is NOT a synonym for legendary. I saw your definition of mythological, and think you are going to find your cause better served by more prudently making use of more than a single dictionary, and perhaps excluding wictionary. Personally, I tend to consider wictionary a fairly unreliable replacement for the other twelve or so dictionaries that have been rendered online. Frankly, I tend to feel the person who uses Wictionary is someone in a hurry to make their point, and hurriedness equals sloppy in my book.

Allow me to explain the difference. A myth is "fabulous, imaginary, based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity" whereas legendary is: "of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a legend; heroic, supernatural, strange, superhuman". Quite a different sort of thing. Along with having both Christian and pagan historical origins, he also has mythological origins, in that many of the stories of him are not based in reality. He is legendary because some of those myths are extended even further (Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, the explanations as to how he makes it to homes without traditional chimneys and whatnot.

What I find stunning is that some folk are falling for the straw man argument which utilizes an exceedingly dodgy statistical poll to try and push a "Santa is a Real Person and I Just Wuv Him (insert a Scooby-Doo laugh here)". It's clownish, encyclopedic and unprofessional.

If you really want to play that way, I am sure the are some real heartless bastards in Wikipedia chomping at the bit to present statistics to show - unequivocally that Santa does not exist, and that anyone over the age of 12 who believes in him needs to be committed for serious psychiatric treatment. See, stats can be manipulated into saying anything. Shankbone warned you about trying to game the system to force a point of view, and you promptly blew him off. He was right, however; there are people who know how to game the system far better than you. Don't open the door to that, We don't present views so minor that they present Undue weight. And frankly, a view that Santa exists, even to help parents forego their own responsibilities, is unencyclopedic and should be seen as a Bad Thing.

An unrelated point: the point of a discussion page is to DISCUSS. I am not sure which arrogant louts decided that they were going to be able to alter the text in the middle of a discussion about the issue and not get reverted, but that isn't how we do things here, It should have been left in place until agreement, compromise or escalation of the matter (mediation, RfC) had concluded. Edit-warring (and I unfortunately have some experience with this) resolves nothing, as evidenced by the article now being locked. Maybe learn from that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fictional"

Lather, rinse, repeat. According to Wiktionary, "Fictional"[4] means 1. Invented, as opposed to real. This is the only definition given. This certainly doesn't apply to Santa Claus. St. Nicholas is a real, historical figure. Santa Claus wasn't invented - his legend started with St. Nicholas and grew from there. Just because many of the legends attributed to him these days are a bit fanciful, doesn't mean that he's invented - or fictional. And please stop acting in bad faith, re: [5]. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I would also like to get some proof here that Santa isn't real. This site is supposed to be unbiased and factual, and we have people writing absurdities claiming he's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.15.19 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus is a fiction, Saint Nicholas is real. That is why there are two articles - one discussing the real person, the other discussing the fictional character. --David Shankbone 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, redundant now, but it seems like it may need to be emphasized) Saint Nicholas is the 4th Century Bishop witha reputation for gift giving. Santa Claus is the fictional folklore character who flies around the world giving presents to good little boys and girls. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Santa Claus is St. Nicholas. They are the same person. Just like the real King Arthur is the same person as the legendary King Arthur. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, Santa Claus grew out of St. Nicholas, rather than being invented.Applejuicefool (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Being based on something real doesn't make him less fictional. A Law & Order episodes that was "ripped from the headlines" is still fictional, despite being based on real life events. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not "based" on something real, he *is* something real around whom stories have sprung up. Look at Daniel Boone...just because he supposedly killed him a bar when he was only 3 doesn't make him a fictional character, it makes him a legendary figure. Santa is legendary, not fictional. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus was never a real person. Saint Nicholas was a real person. The character of Santa Claus is entirely fictional. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The modern Santa Claus also has aspect drawn from victorian fictions and modern American marketing.--Doc^g 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't make him fictional. Renaissance depictions of Christ probably bear little resemblance to the real Christ, but that doesn't make Christ a fictional character. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a far more accurate description is "historical, legendary and mythological". Fictional, not so much. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I would like to add that calling Santa fictional is about as NPOV as calling Jesus or any other biblical character fictional. "historical, legendary and mythological" is spot on. Why this obsession with calling Santa fictional? What did he ever do to you? EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments re: This Discussion moved

I moved them to my talk page. I am not going to call for an official RfC at this time as I feel it would be counterproductive. I just want to fix the article. Applejuicefool (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

{{editprotected}} Please add the {{NPOV}} template to this article. It has been locked in a disputed state. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous.--Doc^g 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the silliest requests I have ever seen. --David Shankbone 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that the current version represents your point of view, but I don't think this request is ridiculous. The addition should be permitted per Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV_dispute?-- Kendrick7^talk 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This article definitely needs the NPOV tag. This is a classic content dispute regarding two very different points of view. The two editors above may disparage those with the differing POV if they wish (it seems civility is not really necessary when you have the truth on your side), but the fact is there are two opposing points of view. This will definitely end up on Lamest edit wars, if it is not already there. Jeffpw (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are the two opposing points of view? Can somebody please spell it out for me? If not for me, then for the admin? --David Shankbone 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider trying Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and trying to explain what you think the the position of the other side is here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an argument over semantics, not substance. We all agree that the legend is based on St Nicholas and then largely adapted over time. It's just how we describe that, without giving the impression that Wikipedia believes in Father Christmas, the elves and the flying reindeer.--Doc^g 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But some of us do! :) Applejuicefool (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your problem, Doc, is in believing some personification of "wikipedia" should have or could have a certain POV on the topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd request that an administrator change "... a fictional folklore figure ..." in the opening sentence to "a legendary figure", to match the second sentence of the lead paragraph, which starts "The legend may have its basis ....", and let the squabble continue here, but I don't know how. htom (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Until through discussion has occurred, it would be inappropriate for anyone to change the exact text that is the cause of the dispute. I think any the NPOV issues can be resolved in the same discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All my experience at wikipedia suggests that without some sort of tag, the side with the current version will have no motivation to engage in any sort of discussion, and will simply wait the protection out. At the very least, the {{protected}} tag should be there. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And a quick scan of this talk page will show that the supporters of the current version were pushing for protection of this version just a day or so ago. I haven't a doubt that discussion will be tabled until after the holidays, as long as the article does not get tagged POV. Jeffpw (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a protection template at the top of the page, which I agree may help encourage people to resolve the matter promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine going back to the version that said "fictional, historical and legendary character" since the character could span all of those. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See, though, the whole point of this discussion (for me) boils down to this: Santa Claus is not some character that some author dreamed up some day. He is *not* fictional, because he was not created for fiction (which is a literary term). Sure, he's appeared in a whole lot of fiction, but then so have several U.S. presidents. That doesn't make them any less real. Shoot, some people say George Washington didn't chop down the cherry tree after all. That story exists - does that make George Washington a fictional character? No, like Santa, he's a real person (yes, Santa and St. Nick are the same person) around whom legends have sprung up. That's why I favor the use of the word "Legendary" and am adamant that fictional or any synonym thereof is clearly wrong and uncalled for. Applejuicefool (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, we have a separate article for the real person of Saint Nicholas. This article isn't about him. It's about the fictional construct based on him. Because he is based on a real person, I'm fine including "historical" as one of the descriptors, but not without clearly stating that this character is fictional. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Chunky, if Santa Claus is not St. Nicholas, then why is the Santa Claus article part of the category WikiProject_Saints articles? See the link at the bottom of this page. Applejuicefool (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a link at the top of the article to Simple English Wikipedia? This could be geared towards children. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We already addressed that, Bunny. Wikipedia is not censored for children, as per policy. We aren't aiming for anything less than encyclopedic - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is the very special, short-bus individual who changed the "legendary, fictional and mythological" descriptors to "fictional folklore character?" And who the hell changed it in the middle of a discussion about it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history or this talk page, you'll see that it's the contribution of several different editors. I get the honor of being the last one. I have to say, though, that whatever the merit of my actions, your statement clearly crosses the line of WP:NPA. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right - maybe it was just my temper flaring at folk who decided that they just didn't think they needed to wait until a consensus was found in the discussion before edit-warring their opinion onto the article. Accept my apology for flaring up at the arrogance and stunted nature of folk doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your continuing insults don't really help improve the situation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay ChunkyRice. Explain to me how your actions helped to improve the article. I am all ears as to how my characterizations were inaccurate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think my single edit to the article was unhelpful or detrimental, I'll concede that. It was, perhaps, poorly conceived. However, calling me arrogant or "stunted" isn't a comment on my edit, it's a personal attack. Please discuss the article and not other editors. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now, what do you plan to do to get us out of this mess? You're an admin. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only way out that I'm aware of is to continue to discuss the article until we can arrive at some sort of consensus. I've been trying to do that. If you'll look above, my last proposal was to go back to the "fictional, historical and legendary" version, which Applejuicefool strongly objected to. As far as being an admin, I'm not going to edit a protected article until a clear consensus emerges. I'd be happy to unprotect the article, but only if people agree to not edit the lead until we have that consensus. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's try something like this: - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical, legendary and mythological (or mythical)

What part of any of the above descriptors is incorrect? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

None. Fictional, on the other hand, is entirely misleading. For something to be fictional it needs to originate from fiction which Santa does not. He originates from folklore which is something entirely different and far broader. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's one defnition of fictional, but not the only one. More generally, it just means something made up or imaginary. [6]. -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, the part that doesn't cite a reliable source? --Pixelface (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. I like mythical better than mythological. --David Shankbone 02:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. The word "fictional" in this case isn't accurate, and any of the other descriptors would be more accurate. Rray (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think "mythical" is a bit off, but I have no real objections. -Chunky Rice (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I used mythological in place of mythical due to the way it would read as well. If there is a big difference between mythical and mythological, my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think mythical is more encompassing, and I think its popular usage makes it more exact. --David Shankbone 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. htom (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think throwing a bunch of half-true adjectives together here is really serving a good purpose. The only way Santa Claus is "historical" in in the figure of St. Nick and there's already a completely separate article for that. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the word "historical" out, but I don't see anything half-true about "legendary" or "mythical". Rray (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not really part of any particular myth or mythology. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "mythic"[7]? Check that one on Wiktionary. I kind of like that one. Applejuicefool (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As he's part of the mythos of Western civilization that's at least better. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent)First of all, let's stop using Wiktionary, and use one of the other dozen or so online dictionaries. Someone using it a lit bit ago equated mythological for legendary (as if that wasn't enough for ridicule) Mythological is NOT a synonym for legendary. I saw your definition of mythological, and think you are going to find your cause better served by more prudently making use of more than a single dictionary, and perhaps excluding wictionary. Personally, I tend to consider wictionary a fairly unreliable replacement for the other twelve or so dictionaries that have been rendered online. Frankly, I tend to feel the person who uses Wictionary is someone in a hurry to make their point, and hurriedness equals sloppy in my book.

Allow me to explain the difference. A myth is "fabulous, imaginary, based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity" whereas legendary is: "of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a legend; heroic, supernatural, strange, superhuman". Quite a different sort of thing. Along with having both Christian and pagan historical origins, he also has mythological origins, in that many of the stories of him are not based in reality. He is legendary because some of those myths are extended even further (Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, the explanations as to how he makes it to homes without traditional chimneys and whatnot.

And yes, there is an article on St. Nicholas, but the article doesn't address the evolution/melding/whatever into Santa Claus. Santa is another entity altogether, though with historical origins. I would concede that a See Also note at the bottom for the At. Nicholas article might be useful, though.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I used Wiktionary because it is a sister wiki to Wikipedia. I figured we all oughta be on the same page, definition-wise-speaking. If you feel Wiktionary is wrong, feel free to correct it, but while I'm editing Wikipedia I plan to use Wiktionary as my dictionary reference, not because I'm in a hurry to make my point, but because it makes sense for the definitions used within Wikipedia articles to align with the definitions provided by Wikipedia's partner, Wiktionary. May I ask what the sources for your definitions are? Applejuicefool (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to use only Wiktionary, I suppose, but it might benefit you to confer with other dictionaries before settling on the wiktionary choice. Just like wikipedia is open-sourced, its better to ciste the sources used for definitions w/in that project. You asked what sources I use. I use four: dictionary.com, askoxford.com, dictionary.cambridge.org and onelook.com to cover all my bases (as it provides links for definitions from almost two dozen online dictionaries - pretty spiffy, that). When I find that the same definition appears over and over, I know that I am getting the consensus of definition. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa" is a legendary, mythic figure who, in Western cultures, is presented as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.[1] or on his feast day, December 6.[2] His origin may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas. Jeffpw (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I am really liking this new spirit of compromise from you, Jeffpw, I think there are a few problems with your proposal. The term 'historical' was utilized as an encompassing generality in favor of something more specific because the origins of Santa Claus can be found in more than just those of the Christian St. Nicholas. There's Odin and Krampus, which are already in the article.

Sidestepping the entire real/not real argument for a moment, the terms that were present in the article before the Wackiness Ensued™ were general enough to allow for the article to reflect many points of view regarding the nature of Santa Claus. It even allowed for the exploration of a real person named Santa Claus (as the legendary personage of Paul Bunyan was likely a real person or an amalgam of several people). By arguing over these terms, those of the so-called 'anti-santa' and 'pro-santa' crowd are effectively painting themselves into a corner. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't implicitly mischaracterize my comments in this debate, Arcayne. I at no time argued to present the article as "Santa is real". I have merely advocated, through my words on this page as well as my relatively few edits to the article, that adults as well as children have a belief in Santa. Jeffpw (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add something I feel is important: I just noticed that a comment above was attributed to me, which I did not make. Children are only young for so long, and as Apple said, children are people too. You are correct, that it is not Wikipedia's job to conform to myths. I am a Christian, and believe in God. However, there are others who do not believe in God. Does that mean that the God article should state that he is mythological? No, because that is directly insulting the beliefs of a large number of people. The Santa Claus article is the same situation. There are a great number of people throughout the world who believe Santa Claus exists. Their beliefs are no less valid than yours. 72.185.216.247 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)These are not my words, and most editors who know me here would know that (for the record, I am Jewish, not Christian). When I refracored a a post to remove a personal attack, Sinebot attributed the result to me. I can see that people would think I was advocating that Santa is real from that statement. That was never my position. Jeffpw (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that we understand your declared actual point, perhaps you can explain how it impacts this discussion. Yes some people believe Santa is real. I think we have a fairly sound consensus that while it is wonderful that little kids and 300 Canadians believe in the Jolly Old Elf, science, history and reason - and out Wikipedial mandate - dictate otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have stated what I believe is a workable compromise for the lead. Continued snarky posts, and misrepresenting the source I included (which is from a respected Canadian polling site and can be extrapolated to represent Canadians as a whole) is unproductive and leads to an entrenchment of positions. I invite you to reformulate your post above if you wish to continue discussing this issue. Jeffpw (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that you thought my response snarky; I thought it rather witty. I think you are smart enough to read between the lines and look for the part of the post that asks you to let us know what you are thinking, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing Arcayne. it is not always easy to read humor in another's text. As to my position on the lead: I already said I like legendary and mythical. The wikilinks to those pages make it clear that both myths and legends are believed by many to be true, and that the use of the word does not take a position. That is neutral. I would also include historical, simply due to the roots in St. Nicholas, but I am willing to concede that point. Fictional is simply inaccurate. I wish to also state that the sentence about beliefs thatw as so contentious has now been elegantly solved, and would hope that it is not tampered with. Jeffpw (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can accept mythical and legendary, as long as no other references to Santa's alleged non-reality are added along with it. I still think my edit is better. Re: Arcayne's suggestion, I will move it up to this section, tho I don't see it matters a hill of beans:

(edit conflict)Well, that is splendid. We find ourselves in a consensus of agreement (with Kendrick dissenting). "Historical, legendary and mythical" are the agreed-upon terms. Would it be appropriate to seek having the page unprotected so as to offer the following descriptors in? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa" is a legendary persona who, in many Western cultures, is presented as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.[1] or on his feast day, December 6.[2] Santa legends often center around hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

The popular North American form of Santa Claus is derived from the Dutch Sinterklaas[3], which in turn is a contracted form of Sint Nicolaas (Saint Nicholas). However, the Dutch Sinterklaas is depicted as being very different from Santa Claus in many ways. Santa Claus has a suit that comes in many colors depending on the country[citation needed]. The most common depiction (red with white cuffs, collar, and black leather belt) became the more popular image in the United States in the 19th century due to the significant influence of Thomas Nast.[4] In the mid-20th Century a series of Coca-Cola advertisements featuring a Santa Claus drawn rotund and jovial by artist Haddon Sundblom popularized Nast's depiction.[5]

Despite the cheerful, well-meaning nature of the Santa Claus legends, they have provoked some criticism. Some Christians feel Santa distracts Christmas celebrants from the true “reason for the season,” - Jesus Christ. Some critics say parents should not foster belief in Santa Claus in their children because those children will inevitably face a crisis when they discover the commonly held view that Santa is merely a fantasy figure.[6] Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization and conspicuous consumption of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7] Applejuicefool (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit isn't acceptable for many of the reasons discussed above. let's just stick to that which caused the article to be locked, and continue discussing this (it goes without saying that edit-warring about this in the article will cause it to be locked again). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that re-write is very problematic and unencyclopedic. --David Shankbone 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we seem to have the first paragraph sorted out, let me focus on the third paragraph for a moment. In the article, it includes the word fiction, which we have agreed is inappropriate. While my rewrite may be imperfect, it at least solves that problem. In particular, I think the third sentence of my third paragraph handles that topic much better than does the current article version. I agree, my third paragraph's first and second sentences might need to tone down the fluff, and I'm willing to work on that. The final sentence in my third paragraph is practically identical to the article. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Deception", "deceit" or "lie" told by parents are all within the vernacular of the critics. --David Shankbone 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But the sentence is phrased as if that is what is actually occurring, not simply what the critics believe is occurring. "Critics object to the Santa Claus legend because they feel parents lie to their children to foster belief in that legend" at least places the blame for the criticism on the critics. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can avoid the use of the word 'fiction'. the other descriptors handle the matter effectively. I think some compromise might be helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have lost sight of the original conflict, which was the introductory sentence. I am in favor of Applejuicefool's proposal: "Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa" is a legendary persona who, in many Western cultures, is presented as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day." Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't lose sight of it; some just moved on beyond it into the criticism thing. the larger consensus appears to be for "Historical, legendary and mythical" as descriptors, to which Applejuicefool (among most others) agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If "historical, legendary, and mythical" is the consensus, why has this not yet been changed? Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism lead re-write

Below is what I propose for the re-write of what critics say about Santa:

There are controversial aspects of Santa Claus. Some Christians feel the myth takes the focus of Christmas away from Jesus Christ, whose birth is celebrated during the holiday. Other critics feel it is unethical for parents to orchestrate elaborate lies to their children to enforce a belief in Santa Claus.[6] Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization and conspicuous consumption of the Christmas holiday, and as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

--David Shankbone 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

David, I could be wrong, but i think that to add that seems a bit less than neutral. If we were to add that, we might have to add the Canadian study citation. maybe we would be better off avoiding the question of Santa's fictional nature - not because of the kids, but because it seems less than neutral. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, regarding the kids, I don't know how many under ten year olds are surfing Wikipedia, and Wikicharts top 1000 in December shows the Santa Claus article doesn't make the list. I'd prefer to keep to the WP:LEAD guideline, which states:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

There is community consensus for this guideline; indeed, Good Article and Featured Article review require it (this article once was a good article - it's far from that now). I have written what critics write, and in very brief and neutral terms, according to guideline and policy. --David Shankbone 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Shankbone, it is precisely the language "Other critics feel it is unethical for parents to orchestrate elaborate lies to their children to enforce a belief in Santa Claus" to which I object. It implies that parents who foster belief in Santa Claus are *actually* bad parents and that they lie to their children. Parents who foster belief in Santa are not lying to their children. At the worst, they are play-pretending with them. Accusing parents of lying to their children is not neutral.Applejuicefool (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where your POV is coming in, Applejuice. You may disagree with cited, sourced criticism, but that's the criticism. We aren't taking out the criticism we don't like. That's against policy and guideline, which I have cited here but that you are disregarding. --David Shankbone 16:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not my POV. A sentence more along the lines of "Other critics object to the Santa Claus legend because they believe parents lie to their children in order to foster a belief Santa Claus" would be slightly more appropriate, because it puts the blame for this horrible criticism on the critics without stating as a fact that parents lie to their children. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what critics say, and there are sources to back up exactly what they argue: that parents are lying to their children. Trying to water down their criticism is POV. If you prefer, we can quote from the sources. That includes Theresa Moss writing in Virtue Magazine, "The world is thrusting in parents’ faces a crazy falsehood that they should lie to their children about Santa Claus, and it’s wrong—like any other lie for which they punish their children." Or Austin Cline on About.com: "Perhaps the most serious objection to perpetuating belief in Santa Claus among children is also the simplest: in order to do so, parents have to lie to their children." --David Shankbone 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Several e.c.'s later...

There has long been some opposition and criticism of the tradition of teaching children to believe in Santa Clause. Some Christians feel the myth takes takes focus from the religious aspects of Christmas. Other critics feel it is unethcical for parents to tell their children what amounts to an elaborate lie.[6] Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

How's that? I did feel that the third sentence was a bit too strongly worded, but most of the changes are for flow rather than tone. I'm not happy with the first line, though. -- Vary | Talk 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If Applejuicefool objects to the word 'lie' altogether, rather than just the wording of the first draft, I wouldn't object to a little weasel wording; "what they say amounts to..." -- Vary | Talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That works for me, although I think some mention of Jesus is warranted, but to not do so doesn't sink your edit. I would be okay with this wording, although some minor tooling could improve it. I don't think we need to add weasel words. Let's stick to NPOV in presenting the critics case. --David Shankbone 16:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There has long been some opposition and criticism of the tradition of teaching children to believe in Santa Clause. Some Christians feel the myth takes takes focus from the religious aspects of Christmas. Others feel it is unethcical for parents to tell their children what critics feel is an elaborate charade. Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

This makes the point that some here wish to make, while treating it neutrally. Critics feel it is pretense, many others disagree. Jeffpw (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See my objection above. I feel that both of these edits as written say that parents are *actually* lying to their children, not that critics think parents are lying to their children. It needs to be very clear that this is the critic's viewpoint, not that critics object to Santa because of this fact that parents are lying to children. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't 'tell' someone a charade; at most, we should go with something like "unethical for parents to perpetuate an elaborate charade" or "what they say is an elaborate lie."

Those opposing the word 'lie' do have a point, though, in that many parents don't consider this kind of storytelling 'lying.' Maybe it's just the way my parents handled it, but I don't remember thinking of 'Santa' as much more than an elaborate game, and I know my siblings didn't, either.

Gah. When did Santa Clause get so complicated? -- Vary | Talk 16:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's POV. Critics flat out say it's a lie. And it is a lie, by every definition of the word. We're here to present what the critics say, not to say that the critics are wrong. That's WP:NPOV. --David Shankbone 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to say they're right, either, though, and it is true that many parents don't consider santa/the tooth fairy/the easter bunny 'lies.' While it may be technically accurate, the word carries connotations that tend to make a value judgment. Yes, critics say it's a lie, which is why it would be appropriate for us to say 'Critics say it's a lie.' -- Vary | Talk 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look at these two versions. #1 (Shankbone's verson) "Other critics feel it is unethical for parents to orchestrate elaborate lies to their children to enforce a belief in Santa Claus." #2 "Other critics object to the Santa Claus legend because they believe parents lie to their children in order to foster a belief Santa Claus." Can you see that the first only places the feeling of unethicalness upon the critics? The elaborate lies part is still taken as fact in that construction. The second construction places the belief that parents lie with the critics, where it should be. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with quoting exactly what a critic says? Austin Cline on About.com: "Perhaps the most serious objection to perpetuating belief in Santa Claus among children is also the simplest: in order to do so, parents have to lie to their children." Then it takes it out of Wikipedia's hands and puts it in the hands of a critic. That should suit everybody. --David Shankbone 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hey, if we put that in in quotation marks with a citation, with no editorializing one way or another about it, I'd be all for it. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a breakthrough. --David Shankbone 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to see it in context, but my first reaction is that a direct quote would interrupt the flow of the intro. I think that line would work better in the body of the section. Without seeing the exact wording, though, I'd frankly prefer a qualifier-free "what amounts to an elaborate lie" to the direct quote, just from a stylistic perspective. How exactly are you proposing we use it?

Other critics feel it is unethical for parents to tell their children what they say amounts to an elaborate lie.

And what's wrong with this, again? -- Vary | Talk 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as the "...what they say..." is in there. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's kind of my point. I know David doesn't like the qualifier, and I prefer the above line without the 'they say' to the direct quote. -- Vary | Talk 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying in the lead of the Santa Claus article that parents lie to their children is definitely POV and unencyclopedic. "Lie" carries a strong negative connotation. I guarantee you that the majority of these parents don't see their actions as lying, but rather participating in a traditional ritual, or raising their children to appreciate the magic of Christmas. It's not our place to take the critics' side over the parents. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, which is why I'm in favor of using the qualifier. I just don't think the direct quote is a good compromise. I can't think of a way to incorporate it that doesn't feel awkward, and I don't see why saying this critic says "it's a lie" is better than/different from just saying critics say it's a lie. -- Vary | Talk 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You guys are misunderstanding NPOV. Wikipedia is not allowed to have a POV. We are, however, allowed to the present the POV of critics. The critics POV is that it is a lie. Saying "Critics feel" is exactly flagging that critics feel it is an elaborate lie. It is POV, however, to say, "Well, the parents don't think it is a lie, no matter what the critics say." That is akin to saying, "The parents don't think they are lying, so the critics are wrong." This is unacceptable. --David Shankbone 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shankbone, are you deliberately misinterpreting me? I am not saying to change or leave out what the critics say. All I'm requesting is that we make it clear that it's the *critics'* point of view, not Wikipedia's. I don't necessarily want the quotation - that was your idea. "Other critics feel it is unethical for parents to tell their children what they say amounts to an elaborate lie" is fine with me, as long as the "...what they say..." qualifier is there. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the wording is redundant. You already have made it clear that the critics are saying it at the beginning. It's like saying "Applejuice feels it is unethical for parents to tell their children what Applejuice says amounts to an elaborate lie." You got your B.A. in English - why are we saying something twice in the same sentence when we make it clear at the beginning? --David Shankbone 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And my point is that there's a difference between telling a lie and telling what someone else says is a lie. The "Other critic's feel..." at the beginning of the quote refers to the unethicalness, not whether or not it's actually a lie. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, without the qualifier, it could be rewritten "Parents tell their children an elaborate lie, and other critics feel it is unethical." Applejuicefool (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, because "Critics feel it is unethical" can't stand on its own as a sentence. They aren't two separate thoughts, they think it is unethical to lie to children. That is their charge. The word lie has a fundamental meaning. As Theresa Moss on Virtue Magazine wrote, "A lie is an intentional untruth, and though parents probably do not intend any harm, they ARE purposefully convincing their children of something that they can not sincerely believe themselves." --David Shankbone 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it can. You ask "Hey, Apple, what about teaching the Santa Claus legend to your kids?" (or "myth", knowing you :) ) and I say "Critics feel it is unethical." It's a perfectly good independent clause. What you probably mean is that it needs an antecedent for the pronoun "it", which is true. In my turned around version, the antecedent of "it" is "tell(ing) their children an elaborate lie." Not that it matters much, we've got it hammered out below, I think. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikipedia cannot "not have a POV"; everything written has a POV, the question is what the POV is. Wikipedia is to have a NPOV, and can (not required) build that by citing other POVs. Or so I understand it. htom (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Other critics say that the Santa myth amounts to an elaborate lie, and that it is thus unethical for parents to teach it to their children.

Any better? -- Vary | Talk 18:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I am okay with that. --David Shankbone 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that in principal, but we've already got "mythical" going into the first graf, why not use "legend" here? Applejuicefool (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer myth. --David Shankbone 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vary's latest working version

I like 'myth,' too, but I was just thinking that saying it twice in a row (it's in previous line, too) might not be the most brilliant pose ever. I don't hate it, but I'm also okay with replacing one instance or the other with legend/story/tale. Anyway, my current working version:

There has long been some opposition and criticism of the tradition of teaching children to believe in Santa Clause. Some Christians feel the Santa myth takes focus from the religious aspects of Christmas. Other critics say that the (story/legend/myth again) amounts to an elaborate lie, and that it is thus unethical for parents to teach it to their children. Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.

Still not loving the first line, though. -- Vary | Talk 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What about this:

There has long been some opposition and criticism of the tradition of teaching children to believe in Santa Clause. Some Christians feel the Santa myth takes focus from the religious purpose of Christmas. Other critics say that Santa Claus amounts to an elaborate lie, and that it is thus unethical for parents to teach it to their children. Others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.

--David Shankbone 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing violates WP:Avoid weasel words every two words or so. Doesn't say for how long, who the critics are, who the "some" Christians are, who the "other critics" are, or who the other other opposition is. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You are mis-reading that section. We don't need to name critics, or how long they have been saying something. That is irrelevant, etc. But you are welcome to attempt a re-write. Have at it. I also note your supposition is very weasely based upon your language. Supposed by whom? For how long? In the end, we are making progress and we are not going to satisfy everyone, so I think Vary and I are on the way to forming something that we can vote on to get consensus. --David Shankbone 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't just dismiss our WP:STYLE guidelines as irrelevant. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What about

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that the tradition is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in it. Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.

Applejuicefool (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this works better:

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence. Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.

Minor changes to make it read better. --David Shankbone 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just re-reading and not liking the repetition of "tradition" myself. I like this latest version. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it as well. --David Shankbone 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Supposition?

Perhaps we could WP:WFTE and simply put forth the first sentence as a mere supposition, in short:

"Santa Claus is supposed to be an immortal man with magic powers who is believed in some Western cultures to deliver presents on Christmas Day."

Thus we acknowledge the belief, without stating one point of view or the other as a matter of demonstrable fact. And, readers who don't believe in such a thing as immortality and magic powers would be immediately clued in without the list of debatable adjectives which are only trying to accomplish this same thing. Wouldn't that make everyone happy? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I bet someone will object that not everybody "supposes" he is. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppositions aren't universal like that, just the opposite. Not to put too fine a point on it, but modern science uses a similar idea of the thought experiment. I think we all can agree that someone somewhere supposes this to be true. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to climb the Reichstag, baby. "Immortal man with magic powers", indeed. :| - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, that's the general contention, isn't it? -- Kendrick7^talk 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to David's contention above that this is weaselly, suppositions don't require a subject. If I say "I was supposed to take out the trash this morning" we all know what that means -- that somebody somewhere at sometime had it in their heads that I would have transported refuse in some manner by that deadline. It's clear enough just to state the supposition's existence. Sure I could get the concept about the trash across in another way, but Santa Claus, as a concept, predates 1590s-style rationalism and you aren't going to find an adequate description using purely post-rationalistic language constructs. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. And you are misinformed if you think Santa Claus the Christmas gift-giver predates rational thought. --David Shankbone 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying he predates Rene Descartes and his way of objectifying reality. That's why I'm suggesting a fall back to the language of the slightly earlier philosophy of supposition theory, typified by William Ockham. The modern Cartesian way of thinking about the world inspired the scientific revolution and has been an overall boon for civilization, but simply falls short when talking about Santa. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks again. Most of your arguments seem more academic exercises in pseudo-intellectualism, and do not add much to the discussion to hammer out the wording of the article. Regardless, we can certainly discuss the Stone Age rationally, there's no reason why a tradition that started in the mid- to late- 1800s can't be described using modern methods of communication and thought. --David Shankbone 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe my compromise wording is somehow unmodern. I just believe the idea that Santa Claus does not think, therefore he is not is the wrong philosophical starting point for presenting this topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?! What are you talking about? --David Shankbone 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You maybe unfamiliar with Descartes proposition that "I think, therefore I am." The argument is over whether Santa is or is not, isn't it? And how do we compromise on some verbiage in between these two possible states of being and non-being? The latest rendition is using "Santa is ... presented as" (i.e. Santa is proposed to be) in lieu of "Santa is supposed to be." I think that's gets the verbiage of existence wrong (as Santa Claus is not a testable proposition under the scientific method), but as long as we are writing by committee, it's the best I'll hope for. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead some more.

Ok, I think we're in agreement about the content of the lead thus far, but I would like to advance one more suggestion. I know this is going to meet some controversy, but I ask that you read and consider my reasoning before you dismiss it. I think we should move the third paragraph out of the lead (winces at the outcry). Here's my reasoning: The third paragraph talks about criticism of topics that haven't been presented to the readers yet. I apologize, I didn't even think about this until I went back to type up everything we have assembled. I would favor replacing the criticism paragraph in the lead with one detailing some of the more popular Santa traditions - toys for good boys and girls, flying reindeer, naughty/nice list, chimneys, etc. That way, when we do get into the criticism (which could be in the next graf if we want to stretch the lead that long) it will have some context. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, for all reasons already discussed. Please read WP:LEAD We can certainly describe what Santa is said to do, but we can't remove the criticism section out of the lead. We can expand the lead to four paragraphs, or we can improve the middle one. --David Shankbone 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)

According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points...". If the lead talks about criticism of something without describing that thing, it cannot stand alone as a concise overview of the article, it does not establish context, and it does not summarize the most important points. It is my opinion that flying reindeer and chimneys are more important to a concise understanding of Santa Claus than are the various criticisms of his existence. Just to explain my post above, which seems to have gotten muddled as I thought it as I wrote it: I favor putting the traditions ahead of the criticisms in the lead. If this makes the lead too long, I feel it is the criticism that should be bumped elsewhere, not the traditions. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with summarizing succinctly what Santa Claus does. It doesn't require a lot of space. Criticisms have to stay. --David Shankbone 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will type up a combined lead incorporating what we've done so far, and adding in some of the more relevant Santa traditions. I plan to prune some on the second graf. I'll post it here when I finish, for discussion. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict(again!))A third paragraph, about the modern Santa's reported activities, would provide examples for the critisms in the fourth (and allowable) paragraph. He is very exploited by many people selling things with his image. htom (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Applejuice's Combined Lead for discussion purposes

Here ya go. I know this is a rough draft...what are your thoughts? I know it still needs links...

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa," is a historical, legendary, mythical figure who, in Western cultures, is presented as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.[1] or on his feast day, December 6.[2] The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

The modern depiction of Santa Claus as a fat, jolly man or elf wearing a red suit with white cuffs and collar, and a black leather belt, became popular in the United States in the 19th century due to the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[4]

Typical legends associated with Santa purport that he lives at the North Pole; that he makes a list of nice and naughty children throughout the world; that he delivers presents including toys, candy, and other goodies to all the good boys and girls in the world, and sometimes coal or sticks to the bad children, in one night; and that he accomplishes this feat with the aid of magical elves who make the toys, and flying reindeer who pull his sleigh.[cite]

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence.[6] Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

Sorry, forgot to sign. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We already mention the gift-delivering in the first paragraph. Here's a re-write of the third as you have it:

In North America, Santa purportedly lives at the North Pole; in the United Kingdom, Father Christmas is said to live in Finland. Legends about Santa Claus include that he has a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; that he makes a list of good and bad children; that magical elves make his toys; and that he sometimes gives coal or sticks to children who misbehave.

--David Shankbone 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not hugely important, but the reason I put gifts in the third graf is to emphasize the tradition that gifts are for good children, and to rough out the nature of those gifts - toys, candy, and other goodies. As I said, it's not a dealbreaker. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

copyedit

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a historical, legendary and mythical figure who, in Western cultures, is described as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day[1], or on his feast day, December 6.[2] The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

The modern depiction of Santa Claus as a fat, jolly man (or elf) wearing a red coat and trousers with white cuffs and collar, and a black leather belt and boots, became popular in the United States in the 19th century due to the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[4] This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, and films.

Typical legends associated with Santa include that he lives in the far north, in a world of perpetual snow (if the tale is told in North America, at the North Pole; in the United Kingdom and Europe he is more frequently called Father Christmas, and is said to live in Finland); he is sometimes married and lives with Mrs. Claus; that he makes a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them as nice or naughty; that he delivers presents, including toys, candy, and other goodies to all of the good boys and girls in the world (and sometimes coal or sticks to the bad children) in one night; and that he accomplishes this feat with the aid of magical elves who make the toys, and flying reindeer who pull his sleigh.[cite]

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence.[6] Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

Lots of piddly little changes. htom (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: This article is about Santa Claus. There is another article about Father Christmas. Why do we need to include information about where Father Christmas lives in this article? Just wondering. Do we need to merge the articles? Applejuicefool (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question. The reason is because the Santa Claus article needs to have a worldwide view. Father Christmas was originally a separate character from Santa Claus, but in recent times they have merged, to a degree, that the two terms are used interchangeably. So it fits to have a separate Father Christmas article, but to also discuss him here since the Santa Claus tradition has merged with other traditions. It can be confusing...but hey, that's why we are here: to sort these things out for people. Which is also why it's important to have a separate North American Santa Claus article. --David Shankbone 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As well, while the Father Christmas article seems geared towards the English (UK for the sensitive) version of Santa, just as there is an article on Santa in North America, and an article on the Christian saint, Nicholas. While there might be minor content-forking issues, this article is supposed to be the main article. There should probably be quicklinks to those articles at the top of the page, so people looking for 'their' version of Santa can find it quicker. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why has the intro not yet been changed to read "historical, legendary, and mythical"? Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your similar post above, but am replying only here. I think it was locked because there were disputes that kept the article in flux with edit-warring. While the primary concern (the 'historic', etc.) has been addressed, another issue has presented itself. I'll start a new section below to see if the major issues have been resolved. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to htom's version above. As you mentioned, the changes are fairly minor. The addition of Father Christmas to the third paragraph seems to be the major content thing. I have problems with some of your stylistic changes: 1) "Typical legends associated with Santa include that..." Include is a pretty weak word here. Include would be used more for a listing of legends by name, like "Typical legends associated with Santa include the North Pole legend, the flying reindeer legend," etc.etc.etc. If you're going to actually delve into what the legends say, you need a word like "state", "say" or (as I suggested) "purport". 2) "(if the tale is told in North America, at the North Pole; in the United Kingdom and Europe he is more frequently called Father Christmas, and is said to live in Finland)" This is kind of awkward. It would flow better if we found some place earlier to mention the distinction between Santa and Father Christmas, and here say something like "Santa lives at the North Pole, while Father Christmas is said to reside in Finland."

So...

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a historical, legendary and mythical figure who, in Western cultures, is described as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day[1], or on his feast day, December 6.[2] The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

The modern depiction of Santa Claus as a fat, jolly man (or elf) wearing a red coat and trousers with white cuffs and collar, and a black leather belt and boots, became popular in the United States in the 19th century due to the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[4] This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, and films. In the United Kingdom and Europe, his depiction is often identical to the American Santa, but he is commonly called Father Christmas.

One legend associated with Santa says that he lives in the far north, in a land of perpetual snow. The American version of Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, while Father Christmas is said to reside in Finland. Other typical legends purport he is married and lives with Mrs. Claus; that he makes a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior; that he delivers presents, including toys, candy, and other goodies to all of the good boys and girls in the world, and sometimes coal or sticks to the naughty children, in one night; and that he accomplishes this feat with the aid of magical elves who make the toys, and flying reindeer who pull his sleigh.[cite]

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence.[6] Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

Applejuicefool (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this version, and discussion seems to have stagnated. If there are no further objections, I think we're done here.. -- Vary | Talk 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos of modern Santa

Hey just a thought, there arent actually any photographs on here of a modern depiction of Santa. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.101.218 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some one should take their own non-copyrighted picture of a Santa at a mall and upload it to the article. 24.126.179.169 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

David would know quite a bit about this, as I am unsure whether a release is needed for Santa's helper (and anyone else in the pic). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa is a lie told to children - Possible addition of a rebuttal?

It would be nice if a balanced rebuttal to this section could be added, since there are psychologists as well as writers like Terry Prachett who believe the "Santa lie" is beneficial to children. I've no particular feeling about it myself but this section seemed a bit unbalanced as it did not provide an opposite view.

Sample:

Some psychiatrists, including Dr. Linda Breen and Dr. Mark Salter, believe that Santa Claus nurtures both social and cognitive behavior in children. The realization of Santa Claus as a fictional (mythological, legendary, whatever) character provides a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood and is considered a developmental milestone. Santa Claus may provide a positive role model, as well exemplifying traits of generosity and good-will. Many letters to Santa Claus that have been studied have shown wishes for someone else, including the sick and the poor. Santa Claus may represent a needed social-cognitive period of symbolic play that is required for creative thought as an adult. (References: Breen, Linda. "What if Santa Died?" Psychiatric Bulletin (2004), 28, 455-456 and Salter, Mark. "What if Santa Died: An Invited Response. Psychiatric Bulletin (2004), 28, 457.) The novelist Terry Prachett writes that the belief in things that there is no evidence for, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, are an introduction to belief in more difficult concepts like Justice and Hope (reference: Wikipedia article on the "Hogfather".) Avin river (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)B. McQuarrie 12.15.07

I would favor that. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda interesting; the psychological impact of the idea of Santa Claus. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely worth adding. We need tighter sourcing for the Pratchett bit, though; we can't cite Wikipedia articles, and I don't see a source for it in the Hogfather article that we could use here. I know I have a copy of the book somewhere, and that phrase does ring a bell. -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase itself seems to be from Aaron's Commentary on this page http://members.aol.com/tishede/pratchett2.htm but it may well be in the book (how'd I miss that one?) htom (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I may have been confused by the movie version. IMDB's quotes page has an exchange between Susan and Death about believing in 'little lies' and 'big lies.' I'm not sure now if any of that is in the book or not. -- Vary | Talk 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the concept of "Santa is a lie told to children" is simplistic and demeaning to children. Let me be clear - I am the father of 5 kids, who have all been told Santa as per the media is not true, that it's really us, but our youngest two (5 and 7) don't believe us. Santa is real in the sense that when my wife and I give gifts to our children 'anonymously' on Christmas morning WE are Santa. Santa is a role. My youngest child does not believe I am 'Mr Smith'. As far as he is concerned I am John Smith, who he calls Daddy. Mr Smith is a completely different person. When his teacher called me Mr Smith he protested that that was someone else. Liz, our 8 year old knows Santa exists, she told me Santa is real, and that it's me. She also told me that for Tanya next door Santa is her Dad, Nick. I think that this debate is being driven by politics and by various editors own guilt over their lack of transparency in their own dealings with their own parents and children. If you want to call Santa a 'lie told to children' you had better include 'taking drugs will send you crazy' (most people who enjoy a glass of wine every few weeks are not crazy), 'talking to strangers will result in them stealing and hurting you' (so you had better not go up to that policeman if you get separated from us in a crowded shopping centre), 'playing with fire will burn down our house' (despite the fact that playing with fire was probably the single biggest step forward for humanity ever), 'touch a knife and you will cut yourself' (and yet we get upset when our children don't touch knives at the table) as lies. As parents it is a natural desire to give our children gifts. It is also a natural desire that our children learn that receiving good things is a consequence of work and good and moral actions. It is also a good thing that our children learn that good things can happen that are not purely dependent on them making their parents happy. Just as in the contrived (but still very real) examples above, the Santa 'myth' (and look at any reputable scholarly work on the nature of myth to see that this is exactly what Santa is) serves a valuable purpose in teaching children that 'success' is a consequence of their actions, without turning children into little parent-pleasing (and later in life people-pleasing) puppets. There are many cultural myths that possess virtue, that are not true in an absolute sense, and yet serve vital and valid purposes in society (eg: the Government is our friend, honesty is the path to success, the customer is always right, every k over is a killer, if you don't eat your greens you'll never grow up). Should we be telling 12 year olds 'hey, you will probably be ok if you smoke pot and have lots of sex, because not all pot smokers become losers and not all teenage girls who have underage sex will become pregnant the first time and die in labour or of ectopic pregnancies'? Or should we say 'hey, having a little bit of heroin every few months is OK as long as you use a clean needle'? When I taught at University, 1st year students were often told things like 'This is not really how atoms bond together. What I am about to tell you is the simplistic half-truth. Later in the semester we will develop our understanding to cover the complicated truth.'. The Santa myth is a bit like this. Of course, insisting that your 10 year old believe in the mythological Santa when his younger siblings are not around is going to foster resentment and a lack of trust, but that is a case of parents lying to themselves as much as to their kids (yes, your kids do have their own personalities, and they do not just exist to act out your own warped ideas about how much you didn't get at Christmas when you were a kid.) WierdJohn (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WeirdJohn, you make some great points here. While I don't agree with everything you say, your main point (complete honesty during the process of raising children is not always desirable) is well taken. Children don't always need to hear the truth, especially in circumstances where that truth would be harmful or dangerous to them. Unfortunately, this is the place to discuss the article, not to debate the philosophies contained in them. The "Santa is a lie" schtick, despite its relative merits or lack thereof, is a common criticism of Santa and the traditions surrounding him. I would love to see a bit of rebuttal in there, though. Maybe when school lets out for Christmas and I can think again, I'll try to research and write some (assuming the article is unlocked by then, which looks doubtful). Applejuicefool (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that rebuttal the psychological effects is merited. --David Shankbone 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the title Santa is a lie told to children sounds kind of hash I think we can word that better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagboy123 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the Terry Prachett idea is in the book but it is in the mini-series based on the book (I looked it up and it will be on ION on Friday the 21st), so I assume it is in the book as well. I can pick up a copy and make sure that it is. 71.33.204.27 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)B. McQuarrie (Avin)

Removing Page-Protection

I am curious as to whether we should apply for page unprotection, based on the resolution of the edit-warring issues that destabilized the article. As I reckon, we have resolved the following:

• issue 1: the descriptors noting Santa as "historic, legendary and mythical";
• issue 2: other Lead statements
  

If there were other issues, please forgive their non-inclusion, but do note them. If any other seemingly insoluble matters remain, bring them up now. Otherwise, we should unprotect the article, make the noted changes and move on from there. I am still thinking we should re-lock it after these changes are made, as the article is going to be heavily vandalized in the days before and after Christmas, but that is my own, personal assessment of human nature. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the source for "mythical"? I think the Encyclopedia Britannica has him as a legend. Phyesalis (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, we hashed all that out above. I personally favored using just the one adjective "legendary", but other editors wanted either mythological or fictional, neither of which are appropriate. We finally compromised on the three descriptors Arcayne listed here. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and yet it still has not been changed in the article. "Fictional folklore" is inappropriate in my opinion, and should be changed immediately. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we perhaps use the editprotected thingy to request an admin to make the change without unlocking, as it says in the protection tag? Applejuicefool (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an agreed up version of the lead should be drawn up below, and request an admin make the change, but keep protected until other issues are sort out re: psychological aspects, how to make it more worldview-oriented, etc. I am in Israel for Wikinews until the 23rd, so my time is limited; however, I have full faith, judging by the current tone of the Talk page, that the current editors could sort it out before then. --David Shankbone 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points - clothes and date of origins

1: clothes: this article at present refers to the conventional (pre-Nast) British representation of Father Christmas in a floor-length green robe, and contrasts this with the American (now pretty much worldwide) representation of Santa Claus in a red suit. I think it would be worth mentioning that, although it appears to have largely given place to the suit now, there are a lot of British depictions between Nast's time and the present in which he wears the conventional long robe, but in red, not green - a compromise, perhaps, between the two traditions. (I believe the French Pere Noel was conventionally depicted wearing white, but I could be wrong on that. He was also a lot thinner than the Anglo-American version.)

2: While there's vague stuff about St Nicholas and Odin, there's absolutely nothing here about the earliest known citations for belief in a midwinter gift-giver - surely a vital piece of information. Over at the Father Christmas article the 1616 citation for the earliest known example of a personification of Christmas in England: we need similar concrete examples for the Continental St Nick or equivalents. And with Christmas coming, I'd say we need them fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.221.148 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to latin

There is no link to latin page: Pater Natalis that is

There's no such article, at least with that spelling. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So...

So what's the problem that it is blocked from editing? --98.193.61.220 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just giving extra time to folk who wanted to voice an opinion regarding the hammered out consensus version for the Lead as follows:

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a historical, legendary and mythical figure who, in Western cultures, is described as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day[1], or on his feast day, December 6.[2] The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

The modern depiction of Santa Claus as a fat, jolly man (or elf) wearing a red coat and trousers with white cuffs and collar, and a black leather belt and boots, became popular in the United States in the 19th century due to the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[4] This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, and films.

Typical legends associated with Santa include that he lives in the far north, in a world of perpetual snow (if the tale is told in North America, at the North Pole; in the United Kingdom and Europe he is more frequently called Father Christmas, and is said to live in Finland); he is sometimes married and lives with Mrs. Claus; that he makes a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them as nice or naughty; that he delivers presents, including toys, candy, and other goodies to all of the good boys and girls in the world (and sometimes coal or sticks to the bad children) in one night; and that he accomplishes this feat with the aid of magical elves who make the toys, and flying reindeer who pull his sleigh.[cite]

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence.[6] Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

If there are no objections (and if people will discuss) their edits rather than edit-warring about it, I think we can apply for the removal of page-protection. Are we agreed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -- Vary | Talk 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I had posted some minor nit picks above, which were never responded to. Paragraph three as it stands is quite awkward. True, the lead is better than the formerly protected version, but it still needs some work. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you can make some nit-pick changes (avoid any unencyclopedic words like "goodies") and we'll generally be fine. Please don't let make changes of the caliber of Kendrick's or we'll end up in full protection again. --David Shankbone 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reason this article is protected?

I was gonnna edit it, but the page is protected. Oh well, not that important.Friendly Guy Hooked On Crack (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could say what you felt needed editing. the article is currently protected, as there were some disputes that led to edit-warring and general wackyness ensuing, but it seems to have calmed down somewhat, and a request has been sent to unlock the page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)