Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 2

message: I just noted an error in the page: "Nikolaus" is not celebrated on December 5th, but on December 6th. I can only tell that for sure for Germany, but I am pretty sure, that other European Countries celebrate on Dec 6th as well.
The Kids are placing a bootie outside their room at the evening of December 5th, cause it they believe, that the "Nikolaus" (or "St. Nikolaus", but "St." is not used in general) comes during the night. In the morning of Dec 6th, the kids find their boots filled with stuff (chocolate, maybe cookies and sometimes a small present). Though the boots are placed on Dec 5th, the "Nikolaus" day is on Dec 6th. 85.177.209.78 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error for date of Nikolaus

message: Can someone add a section with his address? There's a big debate among my friends. I claim he is from the North Pole, but someone else claims he is from Iceland, and yet another person says he has an actual home in Norway. I mean... Norway??
:North Pole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.103.84 (talk) 09:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
::Hi. According to this site, Santa Claus lives in Santa Claus Village, Rovaniemi, Finland. I'm not sure if that's good enough to go into the article though, because many places claim to be Santa's home. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Santa Claus is an amalgam of myths so there exist not such a thing as "correct address". Every version may have a different address...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.43.64 (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's his address? 

message: I find that statement to be really ugly. --Taraborn 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be handled much like the article on God.  The fact is that some people believe in him and others do not, and this article should be written in a way so as not to offend either sensibility.  Right now, this article is a complete mess.  --DDG 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people believe all sorts and there has to be a limit to our sensitivity. The article on the Queen of England does not mention the possibility that she is a lizard for instance. The vast majority of Santa Claus believers are under the age of 10 and they could find far worse on the internet than a truthful Santa Claus article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.38.7.224 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This is an encyclopedia.  It is not our job to protect children's fantasies, and no sources must be cited to say that Santa does not exist because of the common knowledge policy.  We should no more be vague as to the existence of Santa than we should be as to the existence of unicorns. Zelmerszoetrop 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it never hurts to employ a little tact. Barbarossa359 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with barberossa.  Replacing "fictional" with "mythological"/"legendary" and other small changes would avoid upsetting young kids without affecting the accuracy of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoofer25 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Claus is an eminent character in the hearts and minds of millions of children and adults around the world who believe in him. 

message: Why on *earth* is that caveat at the top of the talk page?  Santa is, as mentioned in the article, a mythical figure, not a living person.  I will point out that that is not on the pages of Mrs. Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or even God (the latter of which I do beleive in, and do believe is real, and even I'd complain if the biography of living persons template were on the God page).  If I remember, I'll remove it soon unless it's explained why it's there?? --Canuckguy 02:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, the real problem with it is that Santa's not a living person.  He's a living elf. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But if you believe in santa he's a living person. it's pov to say there's no santa and thuis not a living person. LOL! Christmasgirl
You're all taking this far too seriously. we need to attach 'Living person' because, should small children see this article, we shoul not ruin their beleif in this myth.
I would say YOU (and other Santa apologists) are taking this far too seriously! It's an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia should not be adulterated to protect the sensitivities of anyone who *might* take offense, and certainly not children. If your child believes in Santa and is reading Wikipedia, do you really think he/she is not encountering similar material online elsewhere? 75.62.1.179 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you were missing the little bit of the encyclopedic discussion where it dates the stale discussion you were replying to as August 20 - over three months ago. And perhaps you might want to dial down all the angry somewhat; I cannot speak for anyone else, but sarcasm is wit for low-rent minds. the conversation and issue is working its way out just fine without your caustic little two-pence. So take a deep breath and be nice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography of Living Persons???

message: Um, has anyone else noticed that that main picture of Santa looks, um, psychotic? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice, in my opinion. Or do you like a painted one? Appleworm 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, can we change the image please? 

message: Y'all seriously spend time on this, don't you? Have you thought of running for Congress? Just askin'...Rudolph! On the paper! On the paper!!! 
PJHere 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I haven't reverted "everything" you do; I've reverted edits that violate policy, mostly edits that violate Wikipedia's policy on censorship.  "Mythological" implies "traditional"; if you want to limit the adjectives, "mythological" is more succinct. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed "traditional" back to "fictional," as fictional is more accurate; it's also commonly used in media; see .  OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiple listings at dictionary.com refer to him as "legendary" which is more succinct and accurate than fictional (which could imply that the figure arose from literature). "Legendary" is more accurate than "traditional." Once again, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you're allowing your young child to read Wikipedia, they're going to learn (and see) a lot more than just Santa Claus. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your edit history makes it pretty clear that your primary motivation is to "protect" children who might read these pages. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or for any other reason. "Santa" is not a custom; Santa Claus is a legendary/fictional/mythological figure, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Statement Shortly after creating an account,  began what I believe is a campaign to censor the opening paragraph of various articles related to mythical characters (i.e., Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny. Note that user also created a redirect of Shorties to Child, one slang meaning of that word.  Specifically,  has changed adjectives such as "mythological," "fictional," or "legendary" to "traditional." It's my belief that such changes amount to censorship, and that "legendary" or "mythological" is more succinct and accurate.  Discussion on talk pages for the articles has failed to reach a consensus. Third-party opinions are requested. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro adjectives

message: I've posted a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements.
:Statement Shortly after creating an account,  began what I believe is a campaign to censor the opening paragraph of various articles related to mythical characters (i.e., Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny. Note that user also created a redirect of Shorties to Child, one slang meaning of that word.  Specifically,  has changed adjectives such as "mythological," "fictional," or "legendary" to "traditional." It's my belief that such changes amount to censorship, and that "legendary" or "mythological" is more succinct and accurate.  Discussion on talk pages for the articles has failed to reach a consensus. Third-party opinions are requested. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for third opinion

message: The article currently claims that:
The most common depiction (red with white sleeves, collar, and belt) originated in Finland, and became the more popular image in the United States in the mid-to-late 19th century [1].
However, the article being referenced here does not support this claim. The article merely points out that the character of Santa Claus existed before Coca Cola's Santa Claus, but doesn't actually give an origin to the red-and-white colors of the costume. Unless someone can give a better source, I don't see any evidence to suggest that the red-and-white costume has anything to do with Finland (apart from Haddon Sundblom's ancestry), and I think this comment should be removed. 80.222.51.49 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the costume? 

message: Newest one was vandalized.195.169.201.127 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored previous version 

message: Since this comment that I posted on the talk page of the photo has been ignored there, I am reposting here:
Are we sure the license on this is right? I can't check the website because it requires a password, and the mere fact that information on the site is public domain doesn't mean that everything there is... if this photo was used from some stock photo service then it's not in the public domain at all. Something about it seems like it's not a US Air Force photo, and there's no way to check and confirm either way thanks to the password issue. DreamGuy 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photo 

message: Many speculate that Santa Claus is in fact a member of the communist party with reasons such as Russian claims to the north pole, Santa's symbolic red clothes, and the fact that he gives toys out for free instead of capitalizing on the obvious holiday rush of the season.
(Note: I am not the above poster) Never heard of that controversy. Is this a joke? MalwareSmarts 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa a Communist? 

message: I don't know about this one picture, titled "Santa parading with a Santa Christmas ornament."  It looks like one Santa doing another Santa.  70.49.242.70 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I happen 2 believe in Santa, 'n' i don't care what u guyz say about him. 'N' if u adults say he's a fantasy, then what da heck. I'm a 14 year old kid, let me hav fantasys. Dang. --Mr. Comedian 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are allowed to. Enjoy them while its okay to have them. happy holidays. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yo. Shut-up. I believe

message: I know several jewish children who don't get presents from Santa. They believe in him due to being surounded by christians. And don't say because the jews get presents from family. Santa gives you any present you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.211.13 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't he give presents to jews? 

message: Yes, they're entirely serious, and they may well be on to something.  (If not actually on something.)  Has this theory simply been overlooked, or were certain aspects considered too controvercial for incluson?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.219.111 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Alternate History: Santa, Shamans, and Amanita Muscaria 

message: I ahev to say I am totally opposed to the proposal to merge Sinterklaas into Santa Claus. These are totally different holiday traditions. If there must be a merger than it should be the the other way around, after all Santa Claus is based on Sinterklaas! Jvhertum 14:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose it as well, in fact there is no reasoning given for it so it is bascially just spam on the article. I suggest the merger proposal be withdrawn from the page if no reasoning is given promptly. --Stalfur 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, the merger proposal has now been removed, see Talk:Sinterklaas. Jvhertum 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The merger proposal currently appears to be back, and I would like to add that I, too, am vehemently opposed to a merger, they are truly completely different figures. I'm not entirely sure why there is this long a section on Sinterklaas in the Santa Claus article, though, I could see it being a much shorter one plus a link. But definitely they need separate artticles. (Speaking from .nl) 194.109.254.26 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it from the Dutch folklore section and replaced it with a see template to give: "Further information: Sinterklaas and Saint Nicholas". -Wikianon 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal