Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Is Santa Claus a kallikantzaros?

The article on kallikantzaroi is rather curious: it describes a sort of elf that comes down chimneys on Christmas, spends most of the year trying to chop down the World Tree for Christmas, and was renowned for bringing a girl lots of gifts for Christmas in the story of Kallo and the Goblins. Is this the race of Santa Claus? Wnt (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to cut to the chase: do you have notable references to suggest that he is? Otherwise, the conversation is somewhat moot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport! ;) Really though, I don't know how to research folklore very well. Wnt (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Israeli names for Santa

israeli names for Santa Claus-I have been asked to provide citations however these occur in hebrew lettering therefore are of no value-any israel or Yiddishist could confirm all these names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippy-dippy (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you need citations for that, my friend. Thanks for finally using the talk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing short of vandalism on your part- there should be no reason to include citations as these are absolutely direct translations-the person who alerted you to this clearly has little grasp of hebrew or english or both-Abba Chag Molad meads 'father xmas' as Chag Molad is the Hebrew word for xmas-meaning literally -festival of the birth-tatty nittl is a direct translation of father xmas-as tatty is father and nittl is the yiddish word for xmas, furthermore saint certainly is tzaddikHippy-dippy (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked with someone who actually knows a little more about Israel than I (and, it would appear, more than you). The terms are not used there. Based upon that assessment, I have asked you numerous times to provide a citable reference for their usage. Without them, the terms should not be included in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at your discussion with this person and they actually clearly knew very little-for instance they knew 'chag' was festival (most practicing jews would know this) but the very basic word 'molad' was beyond their knowledge-there seems to be a double standard here-where are the citations for other names???Hippy-dippy (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you didn't see the conversation I had with everyone on the subject. Perhaps if you spent less time stalking the edits of others and more time seeking out a citation (as you have been requested to do no less than half a dozen times), perhaps this conversation wouldn't be necessary. Find a reliable citation that notes the usage, and it is in. We cannot include it otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having problems editing and do have the citation perhaps you can helpHippy-dippy (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive talk page clutter

OK, this talk page's header is too cluttered with excessive items that can be grouped together. For example, you have two (2) {{Talkheader}}s, those alone take up more than half the page. The WikiProjects can be grouped into a WikiProject banner shell that neatly displays all the WikiProjects (even WP ECHO). The delisted GA and the peer review can be easily grouped into a single {{ArticleHistory}} template. It's better to put the cleanup templates into the article, and you can collapse the FAQ for more room. And I've never heard of "please discuss making changes tothe discussion page and achive agreement before instituting them, please" when I cleaned up another talk page (under another IP [75.128.48.147]). The archives can be left the way they are, I can see that now, but what about the header. It's a pain to read all those banners before skipping down to the main discussion. Give it some thought. Cheers, 71.94.143.155 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. :) I would instead propose that the FAQ remain visible (non-collapsed), so that new visitors can learn the prior ground already covered by what has been somewhat contentious debate. The rest can by collapsed down, I feel. I reverted he change you made because obtaining agreement for large-scale change to an article (and their attendant discussions) seems to be a good thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I'll collapse the projects and article histories. The FAQ I'll move to the top, and I'll add a "Skip to TOC" template. Thanks. Cheers, 71.94.143.155 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Splendid. If anyone has any objections to what user:71 is proposing now would be the time to pipe up. Otherwise, collapse away. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. When was the original GA? If it was delisted, there had to be a GA. Cheers, 71.94.143.155 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Currently, there are two redirect templates, resulting in confusing text that says:

Santa redirects here. For other uses, see ''Santa (disambiguation)''. 
For other uses, see ''Santa Claus (disambiguation)''.

Can we have it say:

Santa redirects here;
 for other uses of Santa, see ''Santa disambiguation)'';
 for other uses of Santa Claus, see ''Santa Claus (disambiguation)''.
		 

Or some other form that fills in the "of x", "see x", rather than the blind "uses, see x" ? htom (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(reinstated because I don't see what's crufty about this request.) htom (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

UK and Europe

"In the UK and Europe his depiction..." - em, surely UK is IN Europe? It's like saying "in Argentina and South America". Tpacw (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

HorseGirl070605

I want the page on Santa delated because you shouldn't believe everything you read or watch on TV and sometimes the most real things are the things we can't see. Sincerley, HorseGirl070605

Did you read the message up the top? So what if kids can read about Santa Claus - they can look up all kinds of sick and disgusting things on the internet as well. Wongm (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he real?

Hello. I am seven and my daddy said he was'nt real. Help me please wikipedia. Thank you, Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.35.105 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask your Mom. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Santa

Any place here for people who've had their name legally changed to Santa Claus (i.e. getting social-security checks made out to "Santa Claus", growing a long white beard, getting boxes of candy canes from See's every year to give to children, dressing in a red suit, etc.)? kwami (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention (with citation) in the Popular Culture section, maybe in a paragraph after the Kyrgystan mountain thingamabob. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the stuff on SC, I doubt I can find anything. I have an autographed photo, but don't know his birth name. Lived in Utah (Ogden, maybe?) and died some years ago. Some possible search hits in Utah papers, but they all require a CC to access. There's probably more than one person who's done this anyway. kwami (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede

What is the idea behind the undiscussed changes to the lede we negotiated last year? It was excellent; the current version is slightly less so, in my opinion. I'm not going to give a knee-jerk revert, but I would like to see some explanation as to the thinking here. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, but perhaps you could be a bit more specific? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'll remember, last year we had this big furball about Santa Claus and his real/legendary/mythological/fictional status. We debated it for quite a while and finally came to what seemed to be an acceptable wording for all concerned. Now that lede is being monkeyed around with again. Why? Applejuicefool (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looking back through some of the history, I see this version is closer to the version we came up with last year. It's acceptable. I just don't want to see the word "fictional" creep back in there. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It won't. I will be patrolling it with the Grand Ol' Spiked Club of Metaphorical Puncharino. Only masochists will want to add it in. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa's description

"portraying him as a well-nourished bearded man" made me grin, good job. Paddling bear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

More changes to the lede

First, let me welcome Mountainyman to the editing team on the Santa Claus article. The hours are long, the pay is great, and if you keep it up you may become an honorary elf. That said, I know Wikipedia encourages you to be bold with your editing, but, especially around Christmastime, this article becomes a battle against vandalism and a hotbed of controversy. I would ask that you discuss your changes on this page. Especially changes to the lede couple of paragraphs. Please? While I see nothing wrong with your edits so far, there is the chance that another editor will (especially as you got rid of a *recent* edit by Arcayne), and you could inadvertantly tip off an edit war. So at least for a couple of weeks, let's please get a consensus before making intro changes. Thanks!! Applejuicefool (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, people make changes to my edits all the time; it isn't going to start an edit-war by doing so. You lookin' for a fight, bucko? LOL ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

More pictures

I am going to add a couple more Santa pictures from the Wikicommons. Please discuss if you feel this is inappropriate. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added two pictures, each of which has a purpose. "A modern portrayal of Santa Claus" I added because there isn't a color image of a standard iconic Santa on the entire page. "A child tells Santa what she wants for Christmas" I added to highlight that particular tradition. Any objections? They are both from Wikicommons. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd have them one right next to each other, but Commons pictures are always welcome - much better than that image of the masked, street corner Santa - brr - that just gives me the willies.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are other pictures scattered throughout the article. My thought was to put these together at the top to give a strong impression of how Santa is typically thought of. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we combine the multitude of images into an image "collage"? That way, we don't have three Image tags filling up the space and making the article formatting all screwy, like it currently is in the lead? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about - it looked great on my computer at 1024x768. Is it a resolution issue? I can see that it might format screwy on smaller-resolution settings. My thinking in moving one to the left was that there was a complaint about having too many right together. As I pointed out, there is a reason for each of those three pics - A historically classic Santa drawn by Nast, an iconic modern Santa, and a pic highlighting the tradition of children telling Santa what they want for Christmas. I wanted to give a good solid visual first impression of Santa; as a historical figure, his colorful appearance, and his importance to children. Applejuicefool (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about an image gallery? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the intro?!? I'm fine with it how it is now (the three pics on the right). Applejuicefool (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, silly. I meant an image gallery a bit further down. There are enough free-use images that are okay to use, so long as it doesn't impede the loading of the page by slow connection computers.

I don't mind an image gallery further down in addition to what we have now. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that one of our iconic Santa images got deleted. I'm looking for a replacement. Applejuicefool (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your History comment on your image-swap edit made me chuckle: "re-ordering images - best to have the historical one first, and then the interpretive one"...You're saying Nast's artwork that he made up out of his brain is somehow less "interpretive" than a guy who actually looks like Santa? :) Applejuicefool (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I re-read my edit summary, I can see how that assumption could be drawn. Sorry about that. I meant to point out that we should use the one that set the tone for what Santa looks like - a marked departure from Father Christmas and Sinterklaas - for future generations. The photograph is an evolution of Nast's ideal imagery. I blame myself for not heeding my repeated advice not to use edit summaries to explain beyond the simplistic. Again, my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Santa

Should there be an article about USPS' Operation Santa, given the recent news about it? 63.170.80.2 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks

I do not wish to engage in vandalism and won't be engaging in any edit wars. If you want me to preapprove any changes I will mention on this talk page before making them. Apologies I do not know how to sign comments. I think it is fairly obvious what I am, doing in the lede. Without making any inapprpriate comparisons the Dede Maroz page does not say that Dede Maroz is mythical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainyman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mountain, you sign your posts by either typing out four tildes like this: ~~~~, or just hit the little signature button above the editing screen (the one that looks like handwritten script, to the left of the horizontal line button. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mythical" does not necessarily mean "not real". We had this debate last year, too. When I first looked at the article last year, it blatantly said Santa Claus is "fictional". As I personally believe that Santa Claus is real, I took exception, and there was quite a heated little discussion on the matter. "Mythical" is a compromise, but I think it's a fairly accurate one, in that there are without question many myths involving Santa Claus. Everything printed, filmed, spoken, or otherwise told about him cannot be true. Look at the movie "Ernest Saves Christmas" for instance. It is fiction, but it has added *stuff* to the myths surrounding Santa Claus (the sleigh that only works if people believe in Santa Claus, for instance). Applejuicefool (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've edited back in the 'mythical and legendary' descriptive in the Lede. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I made it "mythical" as it was, instead of "mythological". Applejuicefool (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Dede Maroz page for example does not say that Dede Maroz is mythical; the ChristKind page does not say that Baby Jesus is mythical even though there is as much historical evidence for Santa as there is for Jesus. The Buddha page does not describe the Buddha as mythical eve nthough the gap between Siddartha Gautama and the Buddha is as great as that between St Nicolas and St Nick. In the page on the child of prague it doesn't say that Irish women ask the child of pargue for good weather / a baby and that this is pointless.

I have not made any changes and will not but this is too harsh. Santa is legendary not mythical. All I want is the deletion of the word mythical in the run up to Christmas. I know it is ridiculous to say this but why ruin Christmas? Special:Contributions/Mountainyman (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you're saying, Mountainy, but I think "mythical" is about the best we can hope for. This point has already been argued extensively. I pointed out that millions of people around the world literally believe in Santa Claus, etc. etc. Mythical isn't great, but at least we can look at it (and parents can tell their children, if need be) that "mythical" doesn't mean "fake", it means that there are myths about him, which is true. I'd hate to get into an edit war and end up with "fictional" or worse instead. I can live with mythical. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, if Wikipedia could actually ruin Christmas, a lot of ass-clowns would have hijacked the Project for other purposes; its an argument without merit.

Secondly, you will note that the Dede Maroz, Christkind or other names for Santa/Father Christmas aren't as widely read as this, one of the three main articles on the subject (the other two being Father Christmas and Saint Nicholas), and certainly they aren't anywhere near the quality of this one; they aren't a valid comparison.

Thirdly, the Buddha/Siddhartha argument is closer to the point, but still falls short via definition. Siddhartha was a real chap, and pretty nifty on his pins, by all accounts. Buddha isn't like a spiritual Santa Claus, though. Buddha is state of being; Santa is not a state of being. As well, you are comparing a religious mythology with a cultural one (and they are separate things). From the article on mythology:

According to F. W. J. Schelling in the eighth chapter of Introduction to Philosophy and Mythology, "Mythological representations have been neither invented nor freely accepted. The products of a process independent of thought and will, they were, for the consciousness which underwent them, of an irrefutable and incontestable reality. Peoples and individuals are only the instruments of this process, which goes beyond their horizon and which they serve without understanding.".

:::Lastly, it isn't encyclopedic (or in Wikipedia's best interests) to alter information for specific situations - in your proposed temporary obfuscation. The status of Santa doesn't change whether its Independence Day, the Feast of Beltane or Christmas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That said, just to ask (as a refresher from last year, I suppose), what extra meaning does "mythical" add to the sentence that "legendary" doesn't already provide? "Legendary" makes no judgments about whether the subject is real or not - King Arthur is legendary, for example. Applejuicefool (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that one cannot be legendary and mythical at the same time. As Santa has a factual grounding he is legendary not mythical. However much better that we have mythical than fictional. I won't make any changes bu I would support (If I can support in any meaningful way) a deletion of the word mythical. I won't do it as I agreed with applejuicefool.Mountainyman 10:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that one cannot be legendary and mythical at the same time. To quote David Shankbone's post from last year:

"Legendary" and "historical" do not show that Santa is a fable, a myth. A real person can be "legendary". A real person can be "historical." Neither of those terms make clear, as the Easter Bunny article does, that Santa is a myth.¹

Santa has a roughly factual grounding with some embellishment, like Abe Lincoln or Johnny Appleseed; this makes the character legendary. However, the greater part of the character is fantastical, with enough powers and abilities to make Superman envious. Much like the aforementioned example of the Easter Bunny, Santa is a mythical character. While we cannot ignore the historical underpinnings of the character, we cannot - with respect to those who believe wholeheartedly in the Flying Fat Man - escape that the wacky stories and abilities attributed to the fellow are beyond those of mortal men. Therefore, I think that mythological is the best we are going to get, when the clear alternative would be to scientifically dismiss the character as an indigestion-inspired hallucination ("more gravy than grave to it", to paraphrase Scrooge). I am guessing no one is up for that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of "legendary" from Dictionary.com, I find about what you'd expect, basically the adjective form of "legend". "Legend" reveals:

1. a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical. 2. the body of stories of this kind, esp. as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend. 3. an inscription, esp. on a coat of arms, on a monument, under a picture, or the like. 4. a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. Compare key 1 (def. 8). 5. Numismatics. inscription (def. 8). 6. a collection of stories about an admirable person. 7. a person who is the center of such stories: She became a legend in her own lifetime. 8. Archaic. a story of the life of a saint, esp. one stressing the miraculous or unrecorded deeds of the saint. 9. Obsolete. a collection of such stories or stories like them.

The applicable definitions would seem to apply to even the magical stories about Santa, wouldn't they? Applejuicefool (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the archives, wehre those very things were discussed ad nauseum. Is it possible that you are adding a personal opinion to the meaning of mythical that might not be warranted? Santa is both historical and apocryphal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

in georgian santa claus is თოვლის ბაბუა (Tovlis babua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V mamardashvili (talk • contribs)

 Not done Your request is not clear. Please put it in the form "Change X to Y", as the {{editsemiprotected}} template says. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Value of Myth

If I may be so bold, I feel a good deal of this debate stems from what may be a misconception of the value of Myth. As applejuicefool points out above, "'Mythical' does not necessarily mean 'not real'." In this he is absolutely right. That "Myth" could be synonomous with "lie" is a very recent development, historically speaking. Even the wikipedia article on myth lists this relationship as "popular usage" rather than definition. Merriam Webster's entry doesn't relate the term to falsehood until definition 2b.

With all respect to Mountainyman, there is nothing mutually exclusive about myth and legend, or even reality for that matter. Not in an academic sense. Indeed, definitions 1a, 1b and 2a provided by Webster are perfectly compatible with a real historical figure.

There is another meaning of myth which makes it the ideal term to use. Karen Armstrong, in her book "A Short History of Myth" puts the distinction quite well.

"Today the word 'myth' is often used to describe something that is simply not true... But mythology is an art form that points beyond history to what is timeless in human existence." (Armstrong, 7)

Mythology is one of the earliest modes of keeping history. It is a term that, although it has become pejorative in some circles, in fact implies one of the most important elements of being human. To me, calling Santa Claus a "myth" is not denigrating, it is rather ascribing to the figure a level of importance that is greater than that which could be ascribed to many things which we, in the modern world, tend to agree are "real".

"Mythical" is an excellent compromise on this matter. In my feeling it contains none of the "Massive bias, lack of neutral point of view," or "much humbug!" worried over by an anonymous contributor below. For those who value naught but a strict material empiricism it is just distinct enough from "real" without being an attack on the beliefs of others or their own intellect. To those who believe in, and value more in this universe it is respectful enough without being so reverent or absolute as to exclude those who believe differently. Most importantly, it is accurate, definitively and academically.

I hope sincerely I haven't bored everyone by covering too much old ground.

P.S. A citation, in MLA, because that's the format I know.

Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth. New York: Canongate, 2005

63.229.135.246 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Massive bias, lack of neutral point of view, much humbug!

It looks like one ideological group has taken over this article and is preventing other viewpoints of getting their fair share. Just because you were told by your parents or were led to believe by others that Santa Claus didn't exist and then have others who were told the same echo your thoughts make this the truth. Unfortunately, this seems like another example of the systematic bias found in Wikipedia. Santa Claus has done much, much more than giving gifts to children. He and his spirit has pushed others to give to those less fortunate, to appreciate the important things in life like health and family, to befriend and respect your fellow man and continues to do this today and forevermore.
But regardless of your personal beliefs on this or any other issue, I do wish everyone here a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and the most festive greetings no matter what you choose to believe and celebrate!--72.1.222.53 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the holiday greeting, anon; right back atcha. I would point out that the systemic bias (I fixed your link to the more current one) you posit is reflected in the community's unwillingness to accept without proof the magical abilities of an immortal fat man and his train of flying reindeer delivering millions of presents within a 24-hour period. As such, I think the comparison is akin to that of apples and pomanders. Also, I think you might be adding some of your own personal opinion as to what Santa means; there are some who likely prefer the religious aspects of the season (use your own statements, and substitute 'God' or 'Jesus' as example) to the secular. We are tasked, as a community, to seek out the neutrally objective understanding of a subject. That there is systemic bias to not simply accept matters of faith is likely true, though unfair; it is part of our rules that proof is required for inclusion. There is also bias in other ways, but I am not sure it is of the humbug variety. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good respone Arcayne. People are quick to label individuals who oppose the Santa Claus "tradition" as being a scrooge. That practice is truly unjustified. The claim that removing Santa Claus and removing the elaborate lies needed to sustain the myth in the eyes of little children from the tradition of Christmas as a whole is being 'unfair' to children, is ridiculous. All you need to do is to get to know someone from Latin America or more Catholic countries, or to know me infact. I now live in Western Europe where the Santa Claus tradition is big but I am originally from the Philippines. I grew up knowing of Santa Claus, but not believing in Santa Claus. Did that make my childhood memories of Christmas any 'worser' than kids who grew up in Europe and North America believing in Santa Claus did? The simple answer is, No. No it did not. In the Philippines, a deeply Catholic country, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus and not about Santa Claus. The whole myth of Santa Claus shifts focus and emphasis to material things and I personally think that shifting the meaning of Christmas to one where kids are so fixated on getting their presents is bad, because, as people who would by now call me a scrooge, say that to remove Santa Claus is to remove the whole Christmas experience, are in effect saying that Christmas revolves around Santa Claus and that to remove that element - of materialism and commercialization - would cause the collapse of the Christmas 'tradition'. I am one example of someone who celebrated and still celebrate Christmas without the need of involving Santa Claus. The Christmases I went through as I was growing up was as good as those kids who grew up with Santacized Christmases - this defeats the belief that a Christmas without the perpetual belief in a magical superman would be 'awful' or 'terrible' for children. But I still hesitate from voicing my views against Santa Claus because of being labelled, you guessed it, a "scrooge". Do note that I am not advocating the 'desecularization' of Christmas nor am I against the figure of Santa Claus itself (as in the actual saint -religious figure) or its predecessors Saint Nicholas, Odin et al. If you thought that then please carefully read what I wrote above again.Si lapu lapu (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

I agree with the Bias. There is all this crap about the controversy of Santa but none of the positive things that come of it. Though he isn't real, he still brings the Christmas spirit even to non believers. I do not see how you could disagree with this. Merry Christmas.Halvy2013 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

But... Santa IS real! Although I think there needs to be some points on the problems Santa causes; not least of which is increasing the spread of Reindeer Flu.91.107.4.226 (talk)

Um ooookay. Allow me to crystallize a lot of my concern at your statement by asking you to provide citation as to the citable proof of both Santa as an actual entity (passport images, pilot's license, etc.) as well as Santa's reindeer as disease vectors. Frankly, I think it will make for enthralling reading. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Temptation

The temptation to put a "current event" notice at the top of this is overwhelming... Totnesmartin (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus's wrong translation in Brazilian Portuguese

"Papai Noel" does not translate to "Father Noah" as described in the Santa Claus's page. Santa Claus in Brazil has nothing to do with the biblical Noah - "Noel" would translate something like "Christmas" (as from French "Noël"), therefore the right translation would be "Father Christmas". The spelling of "Noah" in Brazilian Portuguese is "Noé" and is not to be confused with "Noel", which have a totally different meaning. (Gil Sicuro, Brazil). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.219.254 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed for Brazil and Columbia by changing "Father Noah" to "Father Christmas". If you think I'm wrong, please present evidence *here* that "Papai Noel" and "Papa Noel" translate to "Father Noah". It sounds pretty ridiculous (possibly a cultural pun, but not accurate info) to me. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone apparently noticed the typo (I'm going with 'typo') about two weeks ago but, for some reason, didn't fix it. I thought it had been. Thanks again. Padillah (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I saw the earlier complaint as well, and I guess I just assumed someone else fixed it. I checked when I saw this second complaint and it was still there, so I decided to do something about it. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Further Reading

• "Santa's Elves in Alaskan Town Reply to Letters". AOL News. Dec. 9, 2006.
• Barnard, Eunice Fuller. "Santa Claus Claimed as a Real New Yorker." New York Times. December, 19, 1926.
• Baum, L. Frank. The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. 1902; reprint, New York: Penguin, 1986. ISBN 0-451-52064-5
• Belk, Russel W. "A Child's Christmas in America: Santa Claus as Deity, Consumption as Religion." Journal of American Culture, 10, no. 1 (Spring 1987), pp. 87–100.
• Clar, Mimi. "Attack on Santa Claus." Western Folklore, 18, no. 4 (October 1959), p. 337.
• Clark, Cindy Dell. Flights of Fancy, Leaps of Faith: Children's Myths in Contemporary America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. ISBN 0-226-10778-7
• Dini, Paul. Jingle Belle various issues [1]
• Flynn, Tom. The Trouble with Christmas. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993. ISBN 0-87975-848-1
• Horowitz, Joseph. Classical Music in America: A History of Its Rise and Fall. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. ISBN 0-393-05717-8
• "Is There a Santa Claus?" New York Sun. September 21, 1897.
• King, Josiah. The Examination and Tryal of Old Father Christmas; Together with his Clearing by the Jury . . . London: Charles Brome, 1686. Full text available here
• Lalumia, Christine. "The restrained restoration of Christmas". In the Ten Ages of Christmas from the BBC website.
• Moore, Clement Clarke. "A Visit from St. Nicholas." Troy (N.Y.) Sentinel. December 23, 1823.
• Nissenbaum, Stephen. The Battle for Christmas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. ISBN 0-679-74038-4
• Otnes, Cele, Kyungseung Kim, and Young Chan Kim. "Yes, Virginia, There is a Gender Difference: Analyzing Children's Requests to Santa Claus." Journal of Popular Culture, 28, no. 1 (Summer 1994), pp. 17–29.
• Plath, David W. "The Japanese Popular Christmas: Coping with Modernity." American Journal of Folklore, 76, no. 302 (October-December 1963), pp. 309–317.
• Quinn, Seabury. Roads. 1948; facsimile reprint, Mohegan Lake, N.Y.: Red Jacket Press, 2005. ISBN 0-9748895-8-X
• "St. Nicholas of Myra" in the Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org.
• Sedaris, David. The Santaland Diaries and Seasons Greetings: Two Plays. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 1998. ISBN 0-8222-1631-0
• Shenkman, Richard. Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History. New York: HarperCollins, 1988. ISBN 0-06-097261-0
• Siefker, Phyllis. Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas, Spanning 50,000 Years. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1996. ISBN 0-7864-0246-6
• Twitchell, James B. Twenty Ads that Shook the World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2000. ISBN 0-609-60563-1

I've removed the further reading sections above because it's reading like a laundry list of related and semi-related books and seems to be used by people who want to just highlight a work that they care about. There should be a small handful of very relevant sources on this list if it's going to be useful. Someone who has more time and expertise in this area should go through, select a few of them, and then move them back onto the page. —mako๛ 20:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better, take those not really relevant to this article and put them in the more appropriate article (St. Nicholas, Father Christmas, etc.) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong facts under "Influence of Germanic paganism and folklore"

According to this section it's a Germanic paganism, that is wrong, this is a Norse tradition which also is popular by other Germanic folk groups like Germans, Belgiums and Netherlands as example.

Also this section states that Germany, Belgium and Netherlands has kept this tradition best after the christianity tradition came, that is VERY wrong too, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark still celibrates this old Norse tradition with a mix of the christianity tradition. Like in Sweden we still put out porridge to the tomte [2] (santa claus) to make him satisfied during the cold dark nite. And Yule bock, called Julbock today in Sweden is normal, very normal like this gigantic they build every year in Gävle Julbock [3] and of course the Christmas Tree is still popular are widely spreaded all over the world even to the Vatican state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.149.60 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus

Isn't SAnta Claus real?????!!!-76.15.56.93 (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why do you ask? Applejuicefool (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and this perspective probably deserves a more prominent mention in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't ask Wikipedia if Santa is real, any more than you should ask if God is real, or if flying saucers are real. The real answer - unblemished by personal opinion - is that we do not know. We have documented statements from folk that think he does, and documented statements from folk who think he doesn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies upon citations for its content. Currently, there are more citations saying that Santa is an invented/evolved character than there are citations attesting to his actual, physical personage. Until then, we cannot allude to him as a real person- there isn't reliable citation as to that fact. It doesn't make Wikipedia right, it just makes the info we do have fully supported by evidence. In short, you have to do your own thinking on this, just like you do when you have to decide what you believe in, anon76.

Let me put it another way: if I were to tell you that chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies in the world and cited statements from cooks who think the same, it doesn't make you wrong or a dummy for preferring oatmeal cookies or peanut butter cookies. You chose to prefer a cookie other than choco-chip. It isn't wrong; you just cannot support your preference, and - when you get right down to it - what you believe in is simply a matter of faith; either you believe, or you don't. Facts usually have little to do with it (though having facts to support your belief help others to share your belief).

Wikipedia is a tool, not a guru. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys are wonderful with the treating of this topic both in the article (especially the lead) and back here. Thanks for taking the time to address this issue so carefully! - Boss1000 (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice compliment. I understand that messing with Santa is like rodgering the fatted calf; its pretty much why we try to keep the personal feelings out if it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Give props, please

When I'm right, I'm right. Lol! I am guessing someone in the webcomix industry reads the wiki... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deception controversy

This section is in desperate need of rewriting by a neutral member soon as it is disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.101.153 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I went back and found this in the history: Does it need a rewrite, or should we just put it back in as is? Applejuicefool (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deception controversy

The belief in Santa Claus by children is widespread. In an AP-AOL News poll, 86% of American adults believed in Santa as children, with the age of 8 being the average for stopping to believe he is real, although 15% still believed after the age of 10. In New Zealand, 85 percent of 4-year-old children and 65 percent of 6-year-olds believe in Santa Claus.

Parental and societal encouragement of this belief is not without controversy. The editors of Netscape framed one complaint about the Santa Claus myth: "Parents who encourage a belief in Santa are foisting a grand deception on their children, who inevitably will be disappointed and disillusioned." University of Texas at Austin psychology professor Jacqueline Woolley contradicts the notion that a belief in Santa is evidence of the gullibility of children, but evidence that they believe what their parents tell them and society reinforces. According to Woolley:

“ The adults they count on to provide reliable information about the world introduce them to Santa. Then his existence is affirmed by friends, books, TV and movies. It is also validated by hard evidence: the half-eaten cookies and empty milk glasses by the tree on Christmas morning. In other words, children do a great job of scientifically evaluating Santa. And adults do a great job of duping them. ”

Woolley posits that it is perhaps "kinship with the adult world" that causes children not to be angry that they were lied to for so long. The criticism about this deception is not that it is a simple lie, but a complicated series of very large lies. The objections to the lie are that it is unethical for parents to lie to children without good cause, and that it discourages healthy skepticism in children. With no greater good at the heart of the lie, it is charged that it is more about the parents than it is about the children. Writer Austin Cline posed the question: "Is it not possible that kids would find at least as much pleasure in knowing that parents are responsible for Christmas, not a supernatural stranger?"

Others, however, see no harm in the belief in Santa Claus. Psychologist Tamar Murachver said in that it was a cultural, not parental, lie; thus, it does not undermine parental trust. The New Zealand Skeptics also see no harm in parents telling their children that Santa is real. Spokesperson Vicki Hyde said, "It would be a hard-hearted parent indeed who frowned upon the innocent joys of our children's cultural heritage. We save our bah humbugs for the things that exploit the vulnerable."

Dr. John Condry of Cornell University interviewed more than 500 children for a study of the issue and found that not a single child was angry at his or her parents for telling them Santa Claus was real. According to Dr. Condry, "The most common response to finding out the truth was that they felt older and more mature. They now knew something that the younger kids didn't."

Not sure why, but the entire subsection was reverted out by Miagirljmw14 (talk · contribs) after some rather moronic vandalism by Ericeee10 (talk · contribs) (sorry, no AGF for vandals) altered some of the words. I've reinstated it to its pre-vandalism state. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that some mention of sources that do not feel the "Santa Deception" is wrong or hurtful be included both in the main body and at the end of the introduction. I feel like a significant proportion of the population is being left out here. Most parents lie to their children about Santa Claus, and someone must think it's OK. Nlilovic (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia should be renamed FYROM or FYRO Macedonia

Dear administrators,
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a country you refer to as "Macedonia" in "Santa Claus" page, is the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" recognized with this name by the official resolutions of United Nations, ¹ and the European Commission ² Macedonia is the Greek province and domain of ancient Macedon situated at north Greece, and your current presentation of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" under the same name leads to confusion and misconceptions.
A suggestion for the name used would be "F.Y.R.O.M." or "F.Y.R.O.Macedonia" but not just "Macedonia". I hope you will correct the mentioned page, in favor of accuracy and clarity. Details on the naming dispute can be found here:

• Macedonia naming dispute
• Macedonia (terminology)

Ernestogriego (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for providing links to support your comments, Ernestogriego. I think until the dispute is resolved, we should use the UN-defined name of FYROM or FYRO Macedonia for the time being. If it becomes necessary to change it, we can revisit the issue. Other opinions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Needed on "Related figures"

Presumably, the best purpose of this section is to list "Other Santa Claus-like Characters from Folklore," yes? If so, I propose removal of the following: Easter Bunny (nothing to do with Santa Claus), Hanukkah Harry (parody character from TV), Hogfather (fictional character from a modern book), Zanta (Canadian weirdo), and Tooth Fairy (nothing to do with Santa Claus). I would've removed them all myself, but I figured it'd be best to TALK about it first, so I don't get accused of vandalism. FireHorse (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that concise argument, Firehorse. I rather find myself in agreement with you. What do others think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving Hogfather. I'm ok with getting rid of the others. I don't believe that "Related Figures" necessarily means "from folklore". Applejuicefool (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I know we've discussed this before, but I am not convinced that a specific, cited connection connecting to Santa Claus exists. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if Pratchett's Hogfather IS based on Santa Claus, he's a modern creation from a relatively obscure book (relative to customs practiced by whole cultures, anyway). Any argument that admits Hogfather also invites hordes of other modern inventions. If this section is used to list every Santa-like character that appears in modern fiction or pop culture, it will soon become a very long list of very silly nonsense.
It seems to me that the historical folklore connection is implicit; and if it's not obvious enough, then perhaps it should be made explicit, and the section should be renamed something like "Related Figures from Historical Folklore."
Incidentally, I notice several additions have been made since I made this notation — "Mrs. Claus" and the "Yule Goat," to be specific. For exactly the same reasons as I've already cited, I would suggest moving those to the Related Topics section; and I am even more certain that this section should be renamed. FireHorse (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made a start on this. Check it out. Please feel free to re-edit. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Santa Might Not Be Satan but Nimrod

I didn't add this to the main article because I can't find my sources yet, but origin of Santa actually goes back to the history of King Nimrod who was born on the day of the winter solstice, believed to have been on January 6th (Epiphany). Over the years, due to the screwed up Calendars this world uses, the day of the solstice has slowly creeped backwards until the solstice (the birthday of pagan sun gods i.e. Nimrod) was on December 25th. This is what is celebrated as Christmas today--a day of PURELY pagan origins. FYI, Actually the day on the calendar marking the solstice (or first day of winter), December 20th is no longer the actual day of the solstice. The solstice, Nimrod/Santa's birthday would more likely be the 16th or 17th nowdays. Just imagine if they hadn't made the 25th the "official" day for Christmas, you might be celebrating it on December 17th now. The bottom line, Christmas wasn't the Messiah's birthday, but Nimrod's who is the pattern of Santa Claus. How do you think Santa even came to be associated with Christmas...what does he actually have to do with the "Christmas Story"?! It's because it was HIS birthday, not the Messiah's. Also, I believe it is either in the book of Jeremiah or Isaiah (possibly Ezekiel)...I'll leave it to you to look this up, there is a description of modern day Santa Claus, and just like Christmas trees, he is condemned. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could possibly research what I have written, documenting it and adding it to the main article if they are so inclined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.30.117 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I sense far too much coffee...seriously, though, without significant citation stating and connecting this stuff, it is supposition and synthesis. We cannot truck with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nimrod - obviously a dead ringer. There is a guy named "Santal" in that article, so obviously Nimrod must be Santa. :/ Applejuicefool (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and if someone out there could research and write my term paper for me, that'd be great. Just make sure your done early so I can type it up in my own words or the teacher will know. Thanks. (Oh, or you could do your own work, how's that sound?) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus är en man som hämtar julklappar åt snälla barn37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.156.244.164 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the children?

It's my general consensus that under the subsection of "Christian opposition" comes from a non-neutral (?) point of view. It specifically states that there is no such thing as Santa Claus. What about any children reading this? Any innocent minds looking for reinforcement in there beliefs? Many parents would NOT be happy about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.21.41 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what do we do about the parents that would be angered if Wikipedia represented the notion of Santa as true and real? All the Jehovah's Witness parents and several others would be horrified to think WP supported something that is patently false. All we can do is work with what we've got, and what we've got is historical alegory at best. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And what about Santa, huh? How do you think he feels, having his existence questioned all the time? It can give a guy depression. And don;t think for a moment that all that isolation at the North Pole is going to help matters in the slightest. Don't even think that Mrs. Claus is equal to the task; she's got maybe a 5th grade education (as most folk from the 1500's did) and precisely zero psychotherapy skills. And just because Rudolph has a red nose and can "fly" with the rest of the reindeer doesn't mean that their drug dealer can get their hands on a steady supply of lithium,man. So, stop questioning the Jolly Fat Man, okay? You are hurting his feelings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

North Pole

I have removed the following section of the article:

In the late 19th century, a group of Sami people moved from Finnmark in Norway to Alaska, together with 500 reindeer to teach the Inuit to herd reindeer. The Lomen Company then used several of the Sami together with reindeer in a commercial campaign. Reindeer pulled sleds with a Santa, and one Sami leading each reindeer. The American commercial Santa Claus, coming from the North Pole with reindeer was born.

It was suspiciously vague on dates, and when I did a little more researching, I found that the introduction of reindeer to Alaska occurred in 1898, and that the Lomen Company did not begin its association with reindeer and Santa Claus until the 1920s. More here and here. Yet stories and poems about Santa Claus living at the North Pole go back at least to the 1870s. So the 1898 reindeer project was not the origin of the idea, and the Lomen Company was materializing an existing legend, not creating one. — Walloon (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) santa clause is real!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.231.188 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The Lead Section is much too long, wading into detail that is all covered again later on in the article. Ideally, the lead should be limited to the first paragraph - it sets up the article perfectly. I'll leave for it a couple of weeks for counter arguments before deleting the other paragraphs. David T Tokyo (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for stopping by. :) To begin with, the Lede (or Lead) is supposed to touch on material that read about more in depth in the article. The Lede is not just an introduction to an article, but an overview of it as well. A lot of this is covered under the Manual of Style Guideline article, WP:LEAD. If I could trouble you to take a look at that, that would be great. If you have additional questions or concerns after reading that, let us (of, if you wish, me via my usertalk page) know, and we will be happy to answer whatever questions remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne - thanks for the prompt reply.  :) I do know WP:LEAD and have recently rewritten a lead elsewhere (again, through a consultative process), but thanks all the same for pointing me towards it again. My concern was not so much the summary aspect, as the sheer level of detail that was being included, detail which I would normally associate with the article and not with the lead (e.g. Korvatunturi, eight or nine flying reindeer, the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist....). As [WP:LEAD]] says, the lead should be concise. I personally think this particular lead could be made much more concise while still remaining within its approved guidelines. Just my 2p David T Tokyo (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. While you might want to get some other input, I would be interested in seeing a test of example of how you would tighten it up. I am on the fence about the length thing, I am not a fan of over-brevity. It is often the difference between an interesting Lede and one that seems the Cure to Insomnia™.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'll get back to you next week with a rough draft. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Drop it here, so we can all take a gander,a nd thanks for taking an interest in clean-up. It usually a thankless task. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for being late on this. I wound up having several attempts at it. As I mentioned before, my aim was to tighten it up, rather than deliver a whole new interpretation. That said, I have left out the final para (opposition to Santa) as there is no counter argument within that section. Just my opinion, but the one-sidedness seems to misrepresent opinion and it currently leaves a rather sour taste at the end the lede on a much loved mythical figure. If I could have found a way to put forward a more balanced view in this area, I would have done so - maybe someone else can?

I am not precious in the least about what I've written. Change it / add to it / ignore it - whatever. Any views?

HI EVERYBODY. I'm not sure i'm putting this in the right place, but I would just like to add that in Brazil Santa is called "Papai Noel." I'm Brazilian and a writer/translator, so I assure you this information is correct, and I thought maybe it might be useful to add it to the list at the end of the article. Papai Noel simply means Father Christmas, in case you guys need a translation> thank you very much Fetox (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

==================

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or simply "Santa" or "Mr.Claus" , is a mythical character in Western culture, who, legend has it, brings gifts to the homes of the good children on either Christmas Eve or Saint Nicholas Day.

The legend of Santa Claus almost certainly derives from tales about Saint Nicholas of Myra a 4th century Greek Christian bishop, famous for giving gifts to the poor. Parallels have also been drawn between Santa Claus and Odin, a God in Norse mythology. Over time, stories of Santa Claus have become merged with local folklore, resulting in different versions of the story. For example, the American view is that Santa Claus lives at his house in the North Pole, while in other parts of the world, Father Christmas is considered to live in Lapland.

A popular legend says that Santa Claus makes a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("naughty" or "nice"). On Christmas Eve he then delivers presents, including toys, candy, and other gifts to all those who have been good - and sometimes coal to those who have been naughty. He is helped in his task by elves who make the toys in the workshop and by the reindeer who pull his sleigh as he delivers the presents.

In modern times, Santa Claus is generally depicted as a plump, jolly, white-bearded man wearing a red and white suit with a black leather belt and boots. This image was first drawn in 1863 by Thomas Nast, a German-American caricaturist. The image quickly became popular in the United States and Canada and has since been reinforced through song, radio, television, and films.

Santa is a fake?

I saw in the newspaper that Santa Claus is fake. I kept it. But I do not want to get into a fight over this. In fact, the legend of Santa Claus makes holiday fun even though Norad and several cities falsely release information about Santa. For example, Norad routinely lies to the public about Santa's route. Several cities lie and say Santa Claus live at a certain place.

I have read that Wikipedia does not require correct information and that lies are permitted as long as they have a good reference/citation. This supports the inclusion of lies.

On the other hand, I read that Wikipedia is not censored. So if there is a source that says Santa Claus is a lie, then this should be included.

What should we do? Christmas is coming soon so we should decide. I am neutral on the issue and will not argue either way. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the first sentence "Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or simply "Santa", is the legendary and mythical figure...". --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not clearly written. If you click on mythical, it explanation is not clearly written. It would be clearer to say "Modern day Santa Claus is an imposter and a fake." However, I can see that such statement would be controversial so I am satisfied with the current language although I could understand if some people were not. Happy Christmas! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording is consistent with the Tooth fairy and Easter bunny articles. "Imposter" and "fake" have a harsher meaning in English and are not appropriate here. You can say a person is a fake Santa but the idea of Santa Claus is not fake. It's kind of describing Sherlock Holmes as a fake detective rather than a fictionalized detective. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also the rather pedantic question of sourcing. Not to be too banal but I can provide sources that describe Santa as a "fictional person". Or that describe the rise of the "myth of Santa Clause". are there any reliable sources that decry him as an "impostor"? As for being an impostor, who is he posing as? The general description of impostor dictate that you are impersonating someone, so who? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to answer your rather harsh accusations. As NeilN points out above, "imposter" [sic] and "fake" have extremely harsh undertones in the English language and to use them to describe the rather banal telling of a fable is quite over the top. Do we call authors like Stephen King or Dean Koontz a "liar" because they tell stories that are not true? That's the same level of disgust those words show in English. "Fictional" and "Mythical" are appropriate for this use. As for the Myth article not being very clearly written, maybe there are suggestions we can make on that Talk Page that can help clear things up better. That's a great point. Padillah (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

grindor: Santa is real he's not a fake. he is a real person he's not a legend he is a real person.

Origins

MISINFORMATION?

How can you say "Saint Nicholas of Myra is the primary inspiration for the Christian figure of Santa Claus." In the article. It seems that the other examples are earlier and more specific to traditions than St. Nicholas. Yes St. Nicholas is the primary inspiration for the name St. Nick given to Santa Claus, but doesn't really fit THE primary inspiration.

Good question. I've asked for a cite. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is a little misstated as "primary inspiration"; It's more that St. Nicholas is the primary justification for Santa Claus being a Christian figure. I don't think there's any argument that winter gift-givers resembling (more or less) Santa Claus are quite a bit older than St. Nicholas, but St. Nicholas is the Christian vehicle for adopting a winter gift-giver into our Christian pantheon, so to speak. Applejuicefool (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External link

Several years ago I was searching on Internet site where I could chat with my niece as Santa to find out what she wants for the Christmas. I couldn't find any site to do that. So I created site where parents can write letters to their children as a Santa Claus. This year I translated it from Lithuanian to English. I thought that it would be good to write external link to that page in wikipedia. I red in wikipedia's external link policy:

But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide.

So if someone think that Santa Claus Christmas Mail can have external link in wikipedia please write it there: http://www.christmas-mail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasajona (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that such a listing would be inappropriate, more along the lines of advertising than encyclopediatizing. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, while I appreciate your asking, Jasajona, I have to agree with Applejuicefool; this would be an inappropriate addition to the article. I'm sorry. htom (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Elves VS Elfs

I was under the impression that the plural of an elf that worked for Santa was "elfs" as opposed to "elves". The wiki page on the Christmas_elf uses "elfs" but the page about the Elf uses "elves" when referring to santas helpers. RowSkin (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of looking at the Christmas elf article, I have come to the conclusion that it's a stub and a fairly poorly written one at that (sorry if it's your pet project or anything). To the topic at hand, the plural of "elf" is "elves", period. I find nothing about special cases for Christmas "elfs" in any location other than that one questionable Wiki-article. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category Proposal

Shouldn't Santa be included in Category:Holiday characters? --Jezebel1669 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He is in Category:Christmas characters, which is a sub category of Category:Holiday characters. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sinterklaas section

I find the section on Dutch folklore to be rather dissatisfying.

Right in the beginning there is a comparison between Sinterklaas and Odin. I am not saying it's wrong, but I have never heard of it before (while I am Dutch) and it does not include a citation. Additionally, I quickly took a look and the English article on Sinterklaas doesn't even mention the comparison, while the Dutch article on him has even less on the comparison and actually has multiple "citation required" tags in that paragraph. Even if the comparison is justified, the amount of text spend on it is disproportionate. Oh, and it talks about Sinterklaas's horse being able to fly as well, which is simply incorrect. He is often depicted riding on rooftops, but his horse can most definitely not fly.

Besides that, it simply does not really touch on the differences between santa and Sinterklaas. For example, Sinterklaas is Saint Nicholas himself who for some unknown reason lives to be hundreds of years old, Sinterklaas has some unique traditional candy (such as chocolate letters and a number of other things I don't even know an English name for), Sinterklaas arrives in the country in an event shown on national television (made to be quite the hype) and visits just about ever town (both are usually accompanied by a silly story of some kind) and Sinterklaas's birthday (and thus the main present giving, though often the period before that is already used to give the children some smaller presents, which are put in shoes not in socks) is on the fifth of December (which actually is the day on which Saint Nicholas died).

Those are just some of the examples which I think create a significant difference between Sinterklaas and Santa, which were not mentioned. I just think the article does a poor job of describing Sinterklaas and what makes him different from Santa.86.82.132.92 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to add or change the article in any way that you see fit (other editors are just as welcome to respond with suggestions or objections, but you can feel free to set any article improvement in motion). Although you wouldn't have been able to edit the article before today, I've spoken with the person who'd placed editing restrictions on the article, and this person has agreed to lift them. So, as of today, you should be able to edit this article without a problem. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Czech christmas

Hi, I would like to ask somebody, who has such permission to fill in some information about Czech christmas holiday (in Christmas gift-bringers section).
Czech Republic: Svatý Mikuláš ("Saint Nicholas"); Ježíšek (diminutive form of Ježíš ["Jesus"])
It contains correct names (but translation of Ježíšek could be "baby Jesus").
But I would like fill in dates when they are giving gifts.
Ježíšek is bringing gifts in evening of 24th December (which differs from Santa Claus's　gifting during night between 24th and 25th December) - kids are unpacking gifts in evening already.
Svatý Mikuláš is bringing gifts in another date - 5th December, in evening before his holiday - and he often brings only sweets and fruits (for nice kids) and potatoes and coal (for mean kids)

I think at least dates (or that Svatý Mikuláš's)　should be filled in.
TakeruDavis (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) TakeruDavis

You have permission to add/fix this information, and you are more than welcome to do so. The article should be accurate, and your suggestions and contributions are appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Coca Cola vs Thomas Nast

"due to the significant interest of Thomas Nast"... stuff of nonsense !.. Thats just dreamy invention to kill the idea that Santa is owned by Santa

While it may be true that Santa Claus was drawn in a fluffy winter suit by Thomas Nast , its very unlikely that Nast's single carton played any significant part in establishing the "image" of Santa.

The very cold winter of North America required Santa to wear very warm suits, and so there is no coincidence that Nast and Coca Cola drew him in snow gear. So Coca Cola did not "copy" the snow suit idea.

The cartoonist Thomas Nast drew Santa in solid red because he was drawing a cartoon. But the cartoon was published one day and trashed the next so its of little value in "brainwashing" the people. There were many many images of santa drawing all sorts of things, bishops robes, multicoloured or patchy robes , elves clothes and so on..

Coca Cola coincidently uses red and white, so they did not copy Nast's colours either.

So Coca Cola did not copy nast, and they inveted their own Santa for their own purpose.

But was Nast first to brainwash the people ? no nast was not that significant If a Thomas Nast's cartoon did not "invent" Santa, how could coca cola ?

Coca Cola used Santa wearing Cola Cola colours during a massive campaign every year to sell Cola Cola for drinking at Christmas. It was the saturation of images paid for by Coca Cola that causes Santa to get "locked in" to solid red with white image we know of.

Coca cola do admit they weren't actually the first, but do point out that their massive advertising budget must have had a significant influence !

Please fix, URGENTLY.

202.92.40.202 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's enough sources out there detailing Nast's influence on the modern day depiction of Santa Claus. I've added another reference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Nicholas Center External Link

This link has been removed twice as inappropriate and a COI. Usually I'm the one removing EL's but I let this one pass as there seems to be some decent information on the target page. How is the COI being determined? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Compare http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=224 and the name of the account adding the link. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. It seem to be the husband David Myers [4] who has COI on several other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler alert!!!

This thing needs to have a spoiler alert for the children!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.13.231 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no such things as spoilers in an encyclopedia. If you look up information on a subject don't be surprised to find information on that subject. Padillah (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And besides, the article doesn't seem to spoil a whole lot in the first place. Its purpose is not to say, "Santa isn't real", just as the tree article has no need to say, "trees are real". A subject cannot have an article if that subject is not in some sense "real". In this case, the article talks about the historical and symbolic "reality" of its subject. True, the article doesn't say that Santa has a literal existence, but it cannot verifiably deny such an existence either: An assertion in the form of "X does not exist" is a null hypothesis, which cannot be proven empirically. Not that one should expect a child to understand this, but one can rest assured that the article is not going to taunt its readers with something like, "Santa is FAKE and your parents LIED!" Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Color

The two sources in the intro paragraph do not adequately support Nast's influence on Santa's color. The first relies on a "coca-cola" historian who is not an impartial or reliable source. Of course Coca-Cola would like to say that they didn't make Santa Coca-Cola red so as to brainwash people into buying coke.

Needs real citations if Nast is to be given credit for the color.

And although I know original research is not acceptable, I do wonder Harpers (a primarily black and white production) would be able to mass produce not only a color image, but a bold crimson. The modern image of Santa is not just red, it is a very intense, bold crimson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.242.199 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The citations are fine; one of them even cites a Nast historian. If you have sources that contradict the statement please provide them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

What Does it Mean "Santa is a Lie"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple la la (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see that in the article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Purple lala is referring to the fourth paragraph: "Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie"Jmccart2 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)jmccart2

Santa inst reall? :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.95.62 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure he is. It's just that some "critics" haven't done their homework. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Cosmic Latte and Padillah were on the naughty list and don't believe anymore. Sad. -Nalts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalts (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Santa is real, and it's easy to tell, you just have to know where to look and have some luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.182.88 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Danish Christmas

just a minor correction really, but perhaps a translation from danish to english would be appropriate, since it can be refered to the german "Der Weinacht mann". julemanden is danish for santa, as "jul" means Christmas. The "e" is a binding letter. "mand" means man, and since it is singularis certain form (if there is only one) the article is put behind the word (if singularis uncertain it would be "en julemand")so correct translation of julemanden would be "the Christmas man", identically to der weinachtmann, and since we know that most traditions around Christmas originates from germany(even americans) it would be a relevant referance. not that its that important to the page, but still it would make a nice little addition.

my english is good, but not complete. if there is anything you dont understand about the text above, write it down here and ill try to rephrase it.

-that danish guy who loves that strange word "julemanden" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.161.164.29 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How Santa is known in Europe

In the section 'Christmas gift-bringers around the world' the first sentence is "Throughout Europe and North America, Santa Claus is generally known as such, but in some countries the gift-giver's name, attributes, date of arrival, and even identity varies.", but then goes on to list 36 European countries where the 'Christmas gift-bringers' are not known as Santa Claus, making the initial sentence seem incorrect. (BigTurnip (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Fixed. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete "Christmas gift-bringers around the world" section

I think we should delete the entire section "Christmas gift-bringers around the world" or link it to another page. It is too long and provides too little information.(Ewanns (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

It's nice to know what everyone else outside of my culture calls Father Christmas (or a near analogue). The article is heavily US centric anyway.  Stepho  (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SANTA says not to suppress information about Santa.  :-D I think a case could be made for retaining names for Santa Claus in other nations that have that character, but I agree that listing different analogous characters here doesn't necessarily make sense. Possibly a separate article or list for that would be better. Шизомби (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SANTA is one person's opinion, nothing more. Please do not cite this in such a way as to make it appear that it were established policy of any sort. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that following a joke with a laughing smiley made it appear as if it were an established policy or that I was being serious. :-P Anyone following the wikilink could hopefully verify for themselves that it's an essay and indeed one with a single contributor, as you say. Шизомби (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa in Bosnia

I don`t see point off writting about Santa in Bosnia!!! All countrys doesn`t need to embrace Santa and the same thing goes for Bosnia. Part about Bosnia looks to me like some propaganda, like someone is trying to show Bosnia as some primitive country which is absurd. THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH WIKIPEDIA, EVERY IDIOT CAN WRITE DOWN WHAT THEY WANT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeljocity (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Including idiots that complain on discussion pages. If you don't like it, fix it! Applejuicefool (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

{{notability}}, {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{hoax}}, I am a new and don't know how to delete or edit semi-protected articles in wikipedia. In the name of objectivity, I kindly request part of the article named “Islamic opposition in Bosnia” in the main article “Santa Claus” be deleted. The reasons as follows: · Unreliable source – Santa Claus has never been banned in any written document in pre-schools in Sarajevo. While it is true that director in question might have had some objections to Santa, there has been no official documented ban on Santa Claus. · Overcategorisation – even if there was a ban, can you really be objective if you characterize entire country as opposing to Santa Claus and thus let the entire world know that in Bosnia people are some sort Santa Clause haters when in fact, there was a public condemnation of this particular person. · Clear discrimination of one country over the others. So, of all places in the world, only in Bosnia people don’t like Santa Claus??? Nothing could be further from the truth. · This part of article is an opinion of a person (nationalist, judging from his other texts in wiki) that looked up for an article that was again an opinion of some journalist who obviously didn’t bother to check if his source of information is correct. If Wikipedia really wants to be an on line objective encyclopedia, please remove this part of article. Fibica (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

wrong date for Reyes Magos in Spain

Hi,

just wanted to say that the representation or parade of the Reyes Magos takes place on the 5th of January, not the 6th. The presents are delivered during the night from the 5th to the 6th. This can be found in section "Christmas gift-bringers around the world" -> "Europe and North America" -> "Spain". Thanks.

Best regards, Joaquin 155.56.68.217 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus is not the same figure as Saint Nicholas!

Saint Nicholas is a historical and christian person, who has influenced many Christmas-figures around the world. This fact doesn´t make him the same figure with these Christmas-figures like Santa Claus and Joulupukki!--MOddeBonniot (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I get your drift, but in fact you are wrong! Santa Claus is just an americanized version of Sinterklaas, if you ask an English speaking person to pronounce "sinterklaas" you will find he will say something probably very close to "santaclause". In fact, the occupants of New Amsterdam brought sinterklaas to the new world, and when they became "new-yorkers", they continued the same tradition but Anglicized the name, and sinterklaas helpers (moor slaves) which were probably too "politically incorrect" at the time became the more neutral elves, and sinterklaas his white horse became reindeer. So in fact Santa and Sint are one and the same person. If you go further back in history, you will note that with the introduction of christianity in the northern country, the christian leaders simply converted the popular pagan and roman midwinter deities into a more neutral Christian-saint-figure. Per-chance they choose one with a Name Day close to the date (the 6't of december) that northern-Europeans traditionally fired the mid-winter-solstice, the time that the local shamans dressed up as "winter gods". So there is a big difference between sinterklaas and Joulupukki. Sinterklaas and sanata are the same ("christianized") figure, while all those other "winter gods" are not. Although admittedly they "inspired" sinterklaas, and many of them (like Joulupukki) ironically now in turn take over aspects of Santa. Mahjongg (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Saint Nicholas, but Santa Claus is also sometimes referred to by the name of the real person he was partially inspired by. It's possible the multiple names and variations on the character need to be clarified more, or that there are Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) problems. While generally the first time something is mentioned for which there's a separate article it is linked from that first occurrence, it might make sense in this case not to link the Saint Nicholas AKA for Santa in the first sentence until the connection is explained, or since the AKA does not refer to the real person anyway, it should only be linked at the first occurrence where the real person is mentioned. Is there some other part that seems problematic? Шизомби (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You said " Santa Claus is also sometimes referred to by the name of the real person he was partially inspired by". Who might that be? I presume you have it backwards, and meant "Sinterklaas is also sometimes referred to by the name of the real person he was partially inspired by", which would be the christian saint Nicholas, bishop of Myra, in what is now Turkey, but was in fact then Anatolia.

I'm not sure what you meant by "writing about fiction", santa (or sint) is very real in the way that counts, he is more real than any fictitious christian saint from turkey invented by some Christians as a "replacement" for what was also real for the people of that time (their own winter deities). Now Sint (or Santa) has nothing to do anymore with that christian saint. Santa (Sint) is fully secular now. Sinterklaas is NOT seen as a "christian saint" in the Netherlands anymore for decades (if not centuries), he is just as secular as Santa. He is not thought of anymore as a "patron saint" ("beschermheilige" in Dutch) like Sint Hubertus, he is not often addressed as "Sint Nikolaas" anymore but just as "Sinterklaas", just as his "helpers" are never thought of as "slaves", but as friends and helpers of sinterklaas, just like the elves. Mahjongg (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you wrote at all...? Santa Claus is sometimes also known as Saint Nicolas is what I was saying. I have no idea whether the Dutch ever refer to Sinterklaas as Saint Nicolas or not. Santa Claus is a fictional character, sad to say, I wish there really was a man flying around giving toys to everyone. Шизомби (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Then try reading a little better, and you will learn a bit more. It wasn't santa who was (in the past) sometimes referred to by the name of the real person! Oh, and for your information, Santa may, but sinterklaas does NOT fly around giving toys for everyone, he rides on the roofs of houses on his horse, how he get there isn't told, but he doesn't fly there, the horse is a normal horse,it can't fly. Oh, and for the sake of argument HE DOES EXIST, please don't go around saying he does not, not even (especially not) here! ;-) Mahjongg (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to what you're trying to say. The fictional character Santa Claus is sometimes referred to even to this day as Saint Nicholas, or if you like, the fictional character Saint Nicholas is sometimes referred to as Santa Claus, e.g. A Visit from St. Nicholas. As you say, Sinterklaas is different than Santa Claus, despite some overlap, and does indeed have his own article. Is there anything we're actually disagreeing about? I think maybe you're being mischievous here and will get some coal from Black Peter! Шизомби (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the mischievous one eh? Well, if I am getting the "roe", or a lump of coal in my shoe, then you will certainly be put into a burlap bag, and be carried off to Spain for claiming sinterklaas does not exist!

I'm not sure we disagree on anything, yes Santa was historically sometimes referred to as "St. Nicholas", which is the more official name for "sinterklaas", but that was in his early days, when he actually still was very close to being "sinterklaas", he has grown away from that, and switched his "pieten" for "elven", and his horse for (a) reindeer. Bad deal if you ask me. Anyway, my point is that in this context the "St. Nicholas" referred to is not the historical person from Anatolia, it was the magical one who was bringing kids gifts (not the miracle worker one bringing kids alive after being cut to pieces and pickled). Mahjongg (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa around the world

At the moment the article covers primarily traditions about Santa Claus in North America and Europe. While that makes sense given their creation of the tradition and longer history with it, it might be good to have something about his depiction (SC, not similar characters) elsewhere? Also, while there's arguably some merit in including some info on the many names, ordinarily articles don't give foreign words/names for their subjects within the article. They get linked via the lefthand sidebar to foreign wikis if they have articles, and otherwise the info is not included. It might all be better left for the Christmas worldwide article? Шизомби (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All his "depictions" as you call them, are in all probability actually his predecessors! Santa (through Sinterklaas) is based on them (Dyado Mraz/Ded Moroz, Knecht Ruprecht, Julemanden Père Noël, Joulupukki), not the other way around. Mahjongg (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lapland and Santa

Not sure about this, but I was told at Rovaniemi, Lapland (Finland) that some ancient hunters and farmers at that arctic region used to live on houses digged on the ground. The opening so formed was covered with pieces of wood, earth (and snow on winters), leaving only one aperture at one end for access. It happens that the people needed some kind of stove smoke exhaustion, and - usually - the same aperture used for access was the outlet for the smoke. Some unaware european saw this scene and thought that the guy was entering home through the chimney... Unfortunately, I got no evidence or writings confirming such things. Anybody? RobertoRMola (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

the Finns have their own Joulupukki- tradition which is not the same as north-american Santa Claus--MOddeBonniot (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no distinction between Joulupukki and Santa Claus in Finland. Joulupukki does not live on Rovaniemi though, he lives on Korvatunturi (Finnish postal code 99999) with his wife Joulumuori and the elves. The page was protected, so I could not edit it, somebody might want to rectify that bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.237.9 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You People Disgust me

you people are terrible. You say here that Santa is a legend. Do you have any idea how many children look at this? Recently my 9 year old read this article and began to cry when he read Santa was a legend. I had to lie to him and tell him wikipedia was wrong. Do you know how many childhoods wikipedia has ruined? All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You people disgust me. There are children to think of? You do not have to say that he is real, but at least avoid blatantly saying that he is fake! I vote that we revamp this article to make it safe for the children! For there is noting to beautiful in the world as a happy child!-76.15.56.93 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. Wikipedia is not censored, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It says Santa is a legend. It does not say Santa is fake. JB50000 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm not feeding a troll here by replying, but anyhow I daresay bad parenting (anything from lying or inadequate attention/supervision to physical abuse) has ruined more childhoods than encyclopedias ever might (if they even could). I doubt if there are any encyclopedias that claim Santa Claus is a real person, see e.g.[5]. Шизомби (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All children brought up to believe in Santa become disillusioned, and nine years seems about the typical age. Once a child is savvy enough to read an encyclopaedia and can understand what a legend is, you can't expect the illusion to last much longer. No point in blaming Wikipedia and expecting it to dissemble in a doomed attempt to prolong the illusion. If your son hadn't got it from Wikipedia this week, he would have got it from a playground friend next week. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with content of some Wikipedia articles, you should rethink allowing them to browse it unsupervised. There are FAR more disturbing topics covered here than the existence of Santa.--RadioFan (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread is the funniest thing I've read all day. 208.94.196.142 (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Children shouldn't be raised on lies in the first place. Lying to them for 9 years, then blaming Wikipedia for telling them the truth isn't exactly the most morally correct thing to do to your children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.191.230 (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Real?

I just wanted to know if santa is real im not sure because when i ask the web it comes up all these things about "IF YOU ARE UNDER 10YRS OLD THEN SANTA IS REAL" then it goes on to say about st nicholas's life it dosnt give me a straight answer. so pleese tell me REAL OR NOT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.136.45 (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He is as real as you want him to be. Mahjongg (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the introductory sentence unclear or are you just having a bit of Christmas Eve fun?--RadioFan (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But I am, ho ho ho --Santa Claus // ho ho ho // ark // 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He isn't real. 69.178.101.92 (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a real person, Saint Nicholas of Myra, and was born 270 years after Jesus Christ. Just don't believe everything you hear about him, as every time the legends surrounding him are told and retold they are exaggerated and distorted to the point where the essence of St. Nick's mission - that even the poor should not have to go with nothing - is lost under a flood of self-serving commercialism. The point of Christmas never was that it simply become an opportunity for spoiled children to endlessly demand more while parents seize the holiday as an opportunity to give ill-behaved brats sockfuls of coal or cynical merchants laugh all the way to the bank. If anything, the toy drives and food banks are closer to the spirit of St Nick's original mission, one of anonymous philanthropy and assistance freely given to those who have nothing with no expectation of anything of commercial value in return. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Santa is real!

he brought me presents!!!!!!!!!!!! someone should put this in the artical, because this confirms it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.191.230 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but any reliable sources (references)? JB50000 (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! One came from JC PENNY! The other Toys R Us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.191.230 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really! Wow, mine came from Target!!!! Fruitstick (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Fruitstick

Mine came from North Pole Enterprises. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.185.146 (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Christmas / St Nicolaus day

Hi! Because of the restrictions I can't edit the page, so I write it here. In Hungary St. Nicolaus (Mikulás) comes throuh the night 5th December, so the children get the presents on the 6th morning. They get sweets in a bag if they were good and golden colored birch if not. On Christmas Eve Little Jesus is coming and gives gifts for everyone. Thanks, Tamas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penzes.tamas (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that we should separate St. Nicolaus from "the Christmas gift-bringer" (like little Jesus), when writing about countries where there is a difference. (See CZECH CHRISTMAS, HUNGARIAN CHRISTMAS - but it applies to Romania too). My other contribution would be:

"Romania: Moş Crăciun("Father Christmas")

• Angel (Hungarian minority)"

I would add this because it's really particular and special, for these 2 millions people there is a regional gift-bringer: the Angel. If you understand Hungarian, read http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angyaljárás. Szalai.laci (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By heritage I am half Hungarian (Horvath) but I can not speak Hungarian. Please let me know if I added it correctly. Thanks! (Also see the "Slovenian traditions" post on this page.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Slovenian tradition

Hello! I would like to ask somebody to add a paragraph about December holidays in Slovenia.

Miklavž ("Saint Nicholas") - he brings small gifts for nice kids in the night from 5 to 6 December. Božiček ("Christmas Man") - he brings gifts in the evening of 24 December Dedek Mraz ("Grandfather Frost") - he brings gifts in the evening of 31 December or in the morning of 1 January.

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisSov (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added Slovenian traditions. Please let me know if I did it correctly. Please also have a look at the Easter article and let me know if you have anything to add. I have added potica at several articles, and the traditional Slovenian Easter basket - I live in the US but I am 1/2 Slovenian (Stefanich). Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

weasel words

What's with calling him "well nourished," "large, heavyset"? Call him fat. 70.49.241.41 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He's not fat-he's big boned:)--Kevinharte (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to need a new section

I just added Slovenian and Hungarian traditions, but reading my additions it seems they don't quite fit in the section I added them to, but I can't find any place else either. Reading this page, it seems that several people have mentioned traditions from other countries as well. Does anyone want to tackle this? Gandydancer (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite by accident I found an article called Christmas worldwide that contains this information--it's not easy to find. In a few days I will delete what I have added here since it really does not fit. I will work on either a section here or directing readers to the other article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FALSE INFORMATION IN WIKIPEDIA !! Saint Nicolas is not Santa Claus or any other Christmas figure etc.

Dear Wikipedia Staff! >to be rediricted also to founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales!

This article Santa Claus (as well as Santa) in english Wikipedia-pages, is totally false and gives a totally rong information of two totally different topics.

Historical and a christian bishop St. Nicholas is a important personality and a true historical person who attended the important synode of Nikea in late roman- period. He is considered one of the most important saints of both catholic and protestant churches and celebrated yet in many christian countries 5/6 of December. Bishop Saint Nicholas has thus nothing to do in reality with the later Christmas figures like Santa Claus or Joulupukki or any other figure. Bishop Saint Nicholas has been only a good source of inspiration for many later figures - this is the only reference that could be named in the end of these articles.

Why is this article of Santa Claus locked ? This article should be opened immediatedly for corrections. The references used in this false article are only references of certain authors of books without any scientifcal proof of anything and based only to imaginative legends that anybody van create.

Please open the article for corrections!--MOddeBonniot (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What corrections do you want to make? The article says St. Nicholas inspired Sinterklaas which turned into Santa Claus. I've added a reference for the Saint Nicholas alias. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Miles1

Ho ho ho 70.15.148.189 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)